But, if the couple gets along, and they accept their station in life, the woman receives her governmental support, well, the ONLY thing the baby daddy needs to do in life is be… A DADDY. He need not work, He need not be drug free, he need not be married or monogamous with the baby momma, he need not live with his babymomma or spawn, he needs only show the slightest fatherly respect towards his children to receive “the praise of all the hood rats”.. “he such a good dad”, “he plays with his kids”, etc etc .. So much praise, that the guy starts believing that even tho he is smoking weed all day and playing x-box, that if he picks his kid up from school 1x a week, he is a GREAT FATHER.. (that said, relative to A LOT of those jerk-off lower-class dads, he IS a great dad).

…

The actual value of the father comes from the mother hens (the older community women) clucking that he is a good dad cause he picked his kid up last Monday. And let me tell you, there is NOT alot to be proud of or happy about if you are living in the projects. not a fucking thing, least of all the MEN. So, if the neighborhood queens are crowing about how fucking amazing your man is. You as the mother of HIS CHILD (see the diff, good man, HIS child) will allow him as much access as necessary so that you can continue to be the center of GOOD attention in the hood. And by extension, if he is a good DAD, he must be a good “husband” (quotes cause they aint married) and therefore she will STILL have sex with him and maintain a relationship with him regardless of where he lives or who else he is fucking (and he with her, regardless of the same). Its not about him, its not about the kid, its about the attention/envy/admiration she receives for BEING ABLE TO HOLD ONTO HIM IN ANY MANNER. The fact that she is able to HOLD ONTO THAT GOOD MAN regardless of the situation is a testament to her strength as a woman (that how the woman thinks about it) and will eventually lead to her being one of the strong respected matriarchs of that community.

326 Responses to Father Hood

And yet white UMC women continue to view their leaving their perfectly good husbands as a testament to their strength as women. Strictly because white UMC husbands have not yet gone nuclear Dread like their ghetto counterparts did in a previous generation.

#4 most listened to song in the world this week.
Targeted (demographic) women ages 6 and up.

Perception Management is like magic. This is why it’s important for anyone that wants to change things to understand the world of work we do here.

Read the lyrics of the #4 song, and compare the message to AlanB’s description. She wants him… she wants him not, but she wants him to stay the night. Why? The Perception of people around her.

“Are you gonna stay the night?
Doesn’t mean we’re bound for life
So-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh
Are you gonna stay the night?

I know that we are up-side-down
So hold your tongue and hear me out
I know
That we were made to break
So what? I don’t mind

I am a fire, you’re gasoline
Come pour yourself all over me
We’ll let this place go down in flames
Only one more time

Are you gonna stay the night?
Doesnt mean were bound for life
So-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh
Why’re you gonna stay the night?
Are you gonna stay the night?
Are you gonna stay tonight?
Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh
Why’re you gonna stay the night?”

For example, it is considered a great treasure amongst my plates whenever I stay the night. But 80% of men would leap all over the chance to spend the night with a girl of average attractiveness.

Meanwhile, “Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.”

I spend much of my days wishing I were following the Alpha and Omega, rather than fruitlessly copulating like an alpha male, which is something inmates at a nearby zoo manage to do much more successfully than I do.

It is bad out there. I feel for my sons. To echo the words of Anonymous 71, it is bad out there but not everywhere is out there. There are places where it is not so bad (yet). Don[‘t look for a needle in a hay stack. Look for a needle in the sewing case, even if you have to go far to find a sewing case.

If we’re talking about Game and pop culture, one need look no farther than “True Love” by Pink. She sings the song from the standpoint of a woman in a relationship with a man who treats her like shit. She can’t help but love him, though. Here are part of the lyrics to illustrate:

“True Love”, Pink

Sometimes I hate every single stupid word you say
Sometimes I wanna slap you in your whole face
There’s no one quite like you, you push all my buttons down
I know life would suck without you

At the same time, I wanna hug you
I wanna wrap my hands around your neck
You’re an asshole, but I love you
And you make me so mad I ask myself
“Why I’m still here, oh where could I go?”
You’re the only love I’ve ever known
But I hate you, I really hate you
So much I think it must be

True love, true love, it must be true love
Nothing else can break my heart like
True love, true love, it must be true love
No one else can break my heart like you

Just once try to wrap your, little brain around my feelings
Just once please try not to be so mean
Repeat after me now, R-O-M-A-N-C-E-E-E
Come on I’ll say it slowly (Romance) You can do it, Baby
And no one else can break my heart like you

Large segments of the human population in America have gone feral. It is more prevalent among some races than others, but it is happening among all races. The fact is the more primitive people become, the more excuse for authoritarian control by our present rulers. Our Founders said our country could not survive without an educated, responsible citizenry. As that is quickly dying off and replaced by government-encouraged ghetto culture dependency (more “free stuff”), things will rapidly get worse.

To all you fathers of daughters out there reading this thread, this illustrates quite clearly that by allowing your precious little flower to have her little iPod, or whatever tool, and listen to this crap and hang out with her little girlfriends who listen to this crap – you are raising a future little Jizzabell.
won’t you be so proud of your “efforts” someday? Won’t you be so glad you broke down before her (and her mother’s) pleading for you to buy her that TV/Radio/iPod so that she could get indoctrinated in tingle culture?

Music is not culture creation; it is cultural amplification. The undercurrents are already out there, but the music refines and broadcasts them. Would Bruno Mars (being a particularly pernicious example) have been a pop success (with his current songwriting) in the 70s? 80s? 90s? What themes resonate throughout his music, and were those same themes prevalent earlier?

But, if the couple gets along, and they accept their station in life, the woman receives her governmental support, well, the ONLY thing the baby daddy needs to do in life is be… A DADDY. He need not work, He need not be drug free, he need not be married or monogamous with the baby momma, he need not live with his babymomma or spawn, he needs only show the slightest fatherly respect towards his children to receive “the praise of all the hood rats”.. “he such a good dad”, “he plays with his kids”, etc etc ..

I blame LBJ and his Great Society. He ruined inner city America. A pox upon you Mr President.

There should be NO financial support from government for single moms. None. You are a single mom and you want government support? Fine. Then you are an unfit mother and the government will step in and take your child from you and you don’t get to be mom anymore. Your child will be adopted by a mother and a father who will financially support it.

“Strictly because white UMC husbands have not yet gone nuclear Dread like their ghetto counterparts did in a previous generation.”

You won’t see dread, divorce and debauchery so much among UMCs because they are still getting married and staying married at higher rates than the middle and lower classes. Marriage is cratering in the lower classes and the effects are filtering up into the middle class right now, both without regard to race. I read somewhere (probably some hearsay, I suppose) that remarriage rates are trending downward, but it’s not as if the bottom is falling out.

As for me? If my current marriage ends for any reason, I won’t enter into another civil, legal marriage again, ever.

Our Founders said our country could not survive without an educated, responsible citizenry. As that is quickly dying off and replaced by government-encouraged ghetto culture dependency (more “free stuff”), things will rapidly get worse.

Precisely.

You can not have 1st world entitlements and government infrastructure with a 3rd world citizenry.

‘Going dread’ for UMC’s (or even MC’s) is a higher-risk proposition than ever given the current labor market and employment practices of most firms. Having a criminal record (lotsa ways for a dread-goer to pick up a misdemeanor if only for a flimsy contempt of court charge) or a poor credit score (easy to acquire if you’re intent on burning down the financial house to make a point) are two fast paths to never having the type of white collar job typically required today to be MC/UMC.

UMC’s start from a better foundation: better future time orientation for one. They are folks who tend to be more forward thinking. They consider the long-range consequences of their actions more so than lower class folks. They also tend to have more money, which can solve a lot of errors and fix a lot of mistakes. No, money can’t buy happiness. But money can keep you out of a lot of trouble, which can help smooth the way to happiness.

UMCs have a lot more at stake and a lot more to lose. They have a better understanding of the risks and costs involved in poor decisionmaking. And so the UMC are folks who tend to stay married, even if the marriages tend toward the unhappy or unfulfilling.

We are in agreement so far as I can tell. Pity the poor MC/UMC chump, though, who finds himself faced with a wife whose time orientation falls more in line with that of the LC. Ask me how I know:).

The true MC’s and UMC’s have a ton to lose by way of family implosion relative to the lower and higher classes for all of the reasons in the OP. One of the problems that I’ve read elsewhere is that the eventual damage that will be realized by a MC/UMC couple won’t be obvious at first (as the accumulated wealth gets spent down in middle age instead of growing for another 15-20 years). Also important to note that at least some of the women stand to maintain their standard of living (or at least not suffer as much as their ex-husbands) by finding another sucker.

Having a criminal record (lotsa ways for a dread-goer to pick up a misdemeanor if only for a flimsy contempt of court charge) or a poor credit score (easy to acquire if you’re intent on burning down the financial house to make a point) are two fast paths to never having the type of white collar job typically required today to be MC/UMC.

I wonder if they care about criminal history in the Baaken oil fields? I wonder if even HALF of all the guys making $100K or more in North Dakota had bullshit restraining orders filed against them because they got involved with a BPD woman?

The only way your issue is fixed is with a hot economy (something we really haven’t had since 1999 or 2000) and lots of start up companies that are desperate for professional labor. A start up (that only has cash to offer, not benefits or security) will be forced to take people with shady criminal history because… they have no other choice. That fixes this problem. But the only way we fix this problem is with government getting out of the way of business (Thank you Obama!)

In other words, AF-BB with the mass of taxpayers providing the Beta Bux indirectly.

Before I put on The Glasses, I would have ascribed this behavior to short time horizons / present-time orientation. Without question that is a factor, but beneath that lies hypergamy; not all women have the same definition of “Alpha”, obviously.

I suspect this is why the more feminized a church has become, the more likely it is that babymommas will attend. Because no lady preacher is going to turn away another woman with children, nor tell her that aid is contingent on behavior. The Female Imperative transcends race lines, social lines, income lines, and so forth.

The separation of resource provision from sexual gratification makes an AF-BB scenario inevitable. At the micro, individual food bank or church kitchen level and at the national “Fighting Poverty” level. Because that’s the optimal reproductive strategy for the Female Imperative. Anything other than AF-BB is not natural, and requires extra energy in the form of social structures, taboos, and so forth to maintain. Relax all those externalities, and women will tend to fall into their most natural condition – polyandry in serial fashion that provides maximal chance for AF-BB.

Obsidian used to annoy Aunt Giggles by pointing out that the black community in the US was the canary in the coal mine. But, then, many things about reality annoy such women.

One of the problems that I’ve read elsewhere is that the eventual damage that will be realized by a MC/UMC couple won’t be obvious at first (as the accumulated wealth gets spent down in middle age instead of growing for another 15-20 years).

Hurting, your comment reminds me of something, I want to say I read it in Nathaniel Hawthorne’s House of the Seven Gables. He presents a theory, that the first generation of a poor family works hard, in hopes of providing a better life for their children. Those children, not having known the toil that goes into generating wealth, are lazy and squander their birthright. The next generation, raised in squalor by these profligate spendthrifts, realize they want to be nothing like them and start the cycle all over again. I think this theory requires certain conditions of course, like relative ease of entry into the economy and an overall culture which encourages true upward mobility and not the trappings of it. Which is probably not the case today.

In other words, AF-BB with the mass of taxpayers providing the Beta Bux indirectly.
…
Because that’s the optimal reproductive strategy for the Female Imperative. Anything other than AF-BB is not natural, and requires extra energy in the form of social structures, taboos, and so forth to maintain. Relax all those externalities, and women will tend to fall into their most natural condition – polyandry in serial fashion that provides maximal chance for AF-BB.

Without discarding the AF-BB paradigm, what I described in Intrasexual Competition and the Strong Independent Woman and what AlanB describes in the comment I quoted in the OP is something different. AF-BB is a split strategy, and as such a compromise; it isn’t the ideal. More to the point, the “Beta Bucks” aspect of AF-BB overlooks the status a man confers on a woman by demonstrating investment in her and her offspring. It isn’t just sperm and resources which women seek from men, but status. What AlanB describes is how this is still operative even in the most dysfunctional of communities.

Seems to me the status is inherent in visibly having an AF, or as AlanB put it:

Its not about him, its not about the kid, its about the attention/envy/admiration she receives for BEING ABLE TO HOLD ONTO HIM IN ANY MANNER.

If he wasn’t an AF to sufficient degree, she would not want to hold on to him. Because he is an AF to sufficient degree, she wants to hold on to him in any manner. Her status is inherent in holding on to her Alpha, and also inherent in any trade-ups she may perform as part of her serial polyandry.

“ It isn’t just sperm and resources which women seek from men, but status. What AlanB describes is how this is still operative even in the most dysfunctional of communities.”

You’re saying even the poorest of women want the status of being connected to a man, to being a man’s woman. These are descriptions of a woman’s grasping at the most minimal, pathetic amounts of investment and commitment from a man who has little more than time and some ill-gotten resources to give her. He can give her, chooses to give her, next to nothing, and it’s viewed as “status”.

So what is status exactly? I think it means different things to different women (married or unmarried) by location of residency.

AF-BB is a split strategy, and as such a compromise; it isn’t the ideal. More to the point, the “Beta Bucks” aspect of AF-BB overlooks the status a man confers on a woman by demonstrating investment in her and her offspring. It isn’t just sperm and resources which women seek from men, but status. What AlanB describes is how this is still operative even in the most dysfunctional of communities.

I agree with all of this but the way this status is often seen by other women is the ability that the married woman gets from her alpha (oreven beta) husband in getting her OUT of the inner-city (a dysfunctional community) and into a nearby suburb (functional.) If he’s alpha, he going to want her (and her children) to be “protected.” That could never happen in the dysfunctional communitywhere his wife and children will always be vulnerable to outside dangers because he is not always going to be around, he is out earning (or at least, he should be)….

…now if this level of status is NOT what is valued in the inner city (alpha-fux, swagger, and dread trumps protection and beta-bux provision) then I don’t believe any of us here at your blog are appropriate experts on what status is or isn’t. This may be an absolute certainty given that marriage has been destroyed (utterly) in the inner city.

I just read a lot. Novaseeker has expounded on SES and divorce here and elsewhere; and much of what I put in that comment is adapted from him.

Hurting:

“The true MC’s and UMC’s have a ton to lose by way of family implosion relative to the lower and higher classes for all of the reasons in the OP”

Yes. The most forward thinking MCs and UMCs are fully aware that by divorcing, and by ending even a bad marriage, they could consign their own children to lower class status, at least economically – a fate those children will likely never escape.

DetiYou’re saying even the poorest of women want the status of being connected to a man, to being a man’s woman.

Sure, because all women are like that. And if they can trade up, they will, because all women are hypergamous. One of the claims of feminism is sorta true: the real, true patriarchy indeed did suppress women’s sexuality. And for good reason, left uncontrolled it is a destructive force. Euripides knew this 2500 years ago, it is a key point in his final work, The Bacchae.

In the OP and Dalrock’s comments, status = being a man’s woman. Belonging to a man. Having something that bonds him to her. She is his, and by extension he is hers.

If that’s all the status she can get from him, well, that’s better than nothing (so the thinking goes, I gather).

Wow. Okay, I can offer no insight here because that is aiming way too low for me to comprehend. If the bond isn’t marriage (and I’m guessing that it isn’t) then it really is no bond at all because he can walk away when he finds someone new (may not even have to pay any cash or prizes.) And if he has enough swagger, the newbies will be plentiful.

Papa was a rolling stone. WHerever he lay his hat was his home. And when he died, all he left us was alone.

Deti, the status bar for “alpha enough” is really low in some communities. Not just inner city neighborhoods, nope, there’s plenty of trailer parks across the fruited plain that look very similar, from the illiterate children wandering around looking for something to break, to the babymomma parked in front of the TV, to the shiftless “alpha enough” man sitting on a half busted lawn chair in the yard, sipping on a beverage. I’ve seen it, up close.

IBB If the bond isn’t marriage (and I’m guessing that it isn’t) then it really is no bond at all because he can walk away when he finds someone new (may not even have to pay any cash or prizes.)

True enough, but only half of the truth. The rest of the truth: because there’s no real bond, she can kick his sorry self out when she finds someone new. And then she may turn around and park “the kids” with him while she is spending time with her new trade-up. I’ve seen that, although at arms length, too.

@IBB “I don’t believe any of us here at your blog are appropriate experts on what status is or isn’t. This may be an absolute certainty given that marriage has been destroyed (utterly) in the inner city.” Where’s all the hood rats to instruct us on How Life Iz?

What is the never-married rate for middle aged black women (w/ or w/o children) in poverty/ghetto/hood/projects? 80%? 85%? 90%? More, in some locations, probably.

Re: status. I agree with AR that having the A of AF confers status, and I think that having the bucks of BB can also confer status.

Nobody cares that beta dad takes kid to the park every single day, bucks or not. But women everywhere rejoice when alpha dad takes kid to the park.

The more I think of this and these “Father Hoods” (as Dalrock so correctly described) they are the ultimate MGTOW.

* Never Marriage to the baby momma (probably not his kids anyway)
* No financial support to baby momma (she gets a check from the city or state)
* No co-mingling of assets with a baby momma (you live in the projects, section-8, no ownership anywhere of anything)
* Nothing to tax (you make your money on the street, cash only, underground economy)

I mean… wow. These Father Hoods have successfully “gamed” the first world society to grant them the maximum amount of resources that can be provided to them (and their possible descendants) with the most minimal amount of personal investment and virtually NO financial risk to themselves as they have not contracted with a woman and the state.

Just… wow. I always figured that MGTOW wasn’t anything new (been around for several decades) but I guess there are many ways to look at it.

“.. the first generation of a poor family works hard, in hopes of providing a better life for their children. Those children, not having known the toil that goes into generating wealth, are lazy and squander their birthright. The next generation, raised in squalor by these profligate spendthrifts ..”
It’s a bit of a trope Over Here, Marissa.
Goes back to the insane (basically untaxed) fortunes accumulated during the so-called Industrial Revolution. By mere tradesmen.“Clogs to clogs, in three generations.”
Every family has a tale to tell on that.

My own great-great-great-grandpappy employed “120 men and 68 boys”, despite having started life, like his own less fortunate cousins and brothers (and bloody sisters, they had their own textile-based skillz, and got good money for them, and more dependable, if less rewarded, than the frequently-unemployed mens’) as a starving, hopeless, handloom weaver (his father was a Minister of some dodgy sect, and a parish clerk, and his father in turn a small farmer, and his papa, a probable regicide who did a bit of crofting on the side.)

His grandson (the mill-owner in the middle, 120 men etc.) decided to cleave to the new technology, the steam-engine, and died a furnace-stoker in a mill, since aniline dyes had eliminated his father’s trade. His own g-g-g-g-g-g etc. pa was a knight of the realm, going back to companions of William the Bastard. My dad flew one of the first three Canberras.
Life is strange. I still love a bit of the owd Fred Dibnah, engines and such. Ain’t nowt as grand. Bugger yer ‘orses.
Now .. think on.

tl;dr
Up and down, like a bouncy bouncy ball, depending on where your head is at. Tomorrow is different. And better. Always better. Just do it.
Three generations? Not enough pet, give it a bit of time. Things change.

thanks for reposting that remarriage graph. I had the impression the remarriage rate for middle aged men had decreased considerably over time, but didn’t remember it had gone down by nearly two thirds since 1960. That’s a remarkable amount. That’s pretty damn close to the bottom falling out, at least for men’s remarriage.

It’s interesting to see how that doesn’t line up with the conventional wisdom I was raised with — that men NEED to remarry; that men NEED a woman in their lives; that men just don’t do well alone and NEED to have a woman caring for them; etc. The idea is that when you get right down to it; a man has to have a woman or he will degenerate into a helpless, uninteresting, antisocial, unkempt blob of protoplasm sitting in his own urine and feces. These numbers seem to put the lie to that CW.

“the status bar for “alpha enough” is really low in some communities.”

Preach it. I, too, have seen it up close. Went to school with some of their children. Mom and Dad told me their offspring would be worthless piles of shit. Yet, it was these men who were getting all the girls and gaining all the status.

As far as I can tell, no one here has actually had any up close relationships or familial relationships with the kinds of things discussed in the OP, so I’ll weigh in briefly.

1. When most of the women in the projects have children with men that they haven’t heard from in a year, then a man who picks up his kids from school on Friday and stays over Friday night is a cut above. Most of these women of course, never saw their own fathers at all so their bar for what is acceptable is pretty low.

2. Status is relative. Always has been. I grew up in the black community but I had a strong and present father. Rolling stone men held absolutely no appeal. Whomever stepped up to me had to at least be able to appear to past paternal muster on some level. No scrubs need apply. But I had a father who raised and provided for his children as the sole parent throughout my formative years.

3. we currently live in a solidly middle class, mostly white neighborhood. There have been a few girls who have gotten pregnant in the past dozen years that we’ve been here. There have rumors of abortions and a couple who have delivered. Not one black. The rot is spreading.

4. The number of families where the two parents are not the bio parents of all the kids in the home is rising around here. Like I said, the rot is spreading.

Can’t say I’ve heard attached to the Hawthorne novel as you describe, but I’ve heard the same theory proffered elsewhere along a rags-riches-rags meme. Can’t remember, but one had a reference to clothing of some sort.

I was going to offer the prospect of the high wage blue collar job but couldn’t think of a solid example. We are light years removed from the last such job market, adn I fear we will never return. It is simply too easy to import more foreign nationals to depress wages.

Edin, Kathryn, Laura Tach, and Ronald Mincy. 2009. “Claiming Fatherhood: Race and the Dynamics of Father Involvement among Unmarried Men.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 621:149–177.

Re: “AF-BB is a split strategy, and as such a compromise; it isn’t the ideal.” It isn’t true that compromise strategies are necessarily not ideal. In fact generically optimization within constraints produces optimized (aka as ideal as possible) strategies that are compromises. A familiar (!) mathematical example is a soliton solution which crosses over from one valley to another valley by quickly going over the ridge in between with minimal requisite effort. There are plenty of non-ideal solutions that wander up and down the ridge aimlessly, and tunneling through the ridge is less ideal still, taking enormous effort.

UMCs have a lot more at stake [ed: money, status, reputation, etc.] and a lot more to lose.

We all already prioritizing the things UMC do. That’s one of the take-aways from this post: That even in the hood status matters.

If only there were some kind of history, or tradition; perhaps a book–even a set of commandments might do the trick–that maybe would give us priorities that would lend itself to better results for those besides the already wealthy.

I know, I know: “There he goes again. Cane, the Bible doesn’t tell you how to give people future time preferences!”

It doesn’t work that way. You do what it says, and you get what you need. So, for example, if you prioritize the Ten Commandments, then you realize you’d better get cracking if you want to eat on the Sabbath when you’re not supposed to work; and if you can’t steal, and if you want to avoid the temptation to envy your neighbors sabbath feast, or the temptation to tell him a sob-story about how things got out of control for the umpteenth weekend in a row and so that’s why he ought to feed you on the sabbath.

A really wise book might also recognize that their really are people out there who cannot make their Sundays meet their Saturdays solely by the work of their own hands. Such a book might instruct those who are able to reap what they have sown to–I don’t know, I’m spit-balling here–let’s say leave the edges of their fields unharvested for those who truly are less fortunate. Such people of abundance, of course, would have to agree that it’s better to uphold the same book or list of commandments over their own future time preferences.

I was going to offer the prospect of the high wage blue collar job but couldn’t think of a solid example. We are light years removed from the last such job market, adn I fear we will never return.

Organized labor (in this country) only really had the clout over business to extract sufficent wages for a truly middle class lifestyle (40 hours labor = support for 5 people in middle class lifestyle) for the well-formed-brain-dead-job from 1945 to 1973. OPEC ended all of that. By the mid 1970s, Europe, Japan, and the rest of Asia was built up enough (manufacturing recovered from WWII) to cannibalize the wages of the well-formed-job away from the United States. Moving more of these jobs to Mexico only further exaserbated this decline for the abilityof the brain-dead-American to earn money as a robot. This window of Americana was truly very tiny, just a blip.

Basically, if you aren’t in the Baakan oil fields and you have an IQ that is less than 90 (can’t concentrate or work a job that is ever changing and not well formed) and you want to earn enough money in the United States to support a stay-at-home-mom and all your kids on your salary, you are pretty much screwed.

Tam, it’s incredible that you can trace your lineage so far back; I’ve only got to g-g-g-grandpa and the paper trail dies. That whole “those who ignore history” line is always applicable, it seems. So which king was it (probably)?

Different socioeconomic layers have different memes or cultural stories. The upper class is about exclusion and perpetuation. The middle class is about rising higher into the upper class. The lower class is about survival. Note that the cultural attitudes are closely tied to available resources.

Tam makes a point about fortunes being dissipated in three generations. Those who manage to maintain familial wealth do so by training their children up in lessons as harsh as the ones they learned in the building of the family fortune as well as putting into place systems to prevent dissipation and growing the family fortune so large that it was difficult for the spendthrift to spend it all.

I suspect that the ghetto class behaviors whether in an inner city ghetto, or a trailer park ghetto would disappear right quick were the government to shut off the taps. It ends up being just as much a function of a wealthy society as the SWPL.

@LiveFearless, most pop songs are the apex fallacy writ large. For example, it is considered a great treasure amongst my plates whenever I stay the night. But 80% (95% per @Tilikum) of men would leap all over the chance to spend the night with a girl of average attractiveness.

It’s a hedonistic matriarchal society. Nothing new. They’ve heard of men, but don’t know what one is. They’re not trying to encourage Man behavior. They are trying to encourage a male to do what they want him to do. Even if they were trying to create a man, they couldn’t. They would think they could turn a male human being into a man using the same method they do everything else…using emotion and sex as currency. They don’t understand that men come from other men. Men train other men using the masculine brain.

The Man software gets downloaded from Man to Man.You can’t download the Man software from the female hardware into the male hardware, because the Man software wont run on the female brain.

A Matriarchal Society depends upon giving their males tasks to do using sex and emotion as currency. Production is the currency in a Patriarchal Society. Sex is the currency in a matriarchal society.

A Matriarchal Society depends upon giving their males tasks to do using sex and emotion as currency. Production is the currency in a Patriarchal Society. Sex is the currency in a matriarchal society.

Consider a 13 year old girl with a couple of younger siblings, living in a Section 8 dwelling, fed by SNAP, clothed by a mix of charity (church or otherwise) and thrift shops. Her momma is pregnant again, by a different man than fathered her, different than fathered her sibs. What does she learn? She learns that women make a living by making babies. That women keep men around with sex, and by access to their child(ren), but men aren’t where rent and food comes from, that comes from somewhere else, from some mysterious source. Momma gets it, not any man. She’s the head of the house, not any man. So anyone trying to teach that 13 year old girl the right way to live has an uphill fight, against what she’s seeing every single day and night.

Consider what a 13 year old boy learns growing up – all the above, plus Momma has the power to make any male “go away” whenever she wants. So the key to staying around is to make Momma “want to keep you around”,if you’re a male human being. That means a lot of things. But one thing is for sure – Momma’s in charge of the house, and the food. So either toe the line, or make a plan to go somewhere else (one young man I knew bided his time and signed up for the Marines, and never looked back). It’s an uphill task to teach this 13 year old as well.

This is not some theoretical construct. I’ve seen it play out, in places where I used to live.

UnicornHunter – “I suspect that the ghetto class behaviors whether in an inner city ghetto, or a trailer park ghetto would disappear right quick were the government to shut off the taps. It ends up being just as much a function of a wealthy society as the SWPL.”

Don’t forget dumping many of the regulations, fees, permits, bribes, and taxes that hinder business development and hiring. Remember the government gives with one hand and takes away with the other.

Your points were, however, irrelevant to the narrow point I was making in response to hurting.

Perhaps I misunderstood you. You said:

UMC’s start from a better foundation:

And then proceeded to say that a better foundation is future time preference, money, status, and reputation, etc. Is that not what you meant by a better foundation? If so, is that really much of a foundation?

Wow. Jenny really is pathological, so much so that she doesn’t care who sees that she is pathological.
“Of course I think my marriage going down in flames is his fault. He thinks it’s my fault. It’s just human nature. But in reality, it’s both our faults. In the end, neither one of us was willing to give into the other’s idea of what marriage should be.” She wasn’t willing to give in, he remains too willing.
“I tell my daughters that it’s ok to ask Daddy not to talk about me. I also tell them it’s ok to talk to him about anything.” You can discuss any of your concerns except what most concerns you.

“The divorce. Daddy says it’s your decision, and he just wants us to move home.” her five-year-old said.

All of which can be verified, in her own words, posted publicly on her own weblog. Her two little kids might have read it there. Now she’s complaining that they aren’t idiots who unquestioningly believe everything she spins? Laughable.

Being serious for a moment, I feel sorry for those girls. Their mother uses them for attention on the internet and commodifies their “cuteness”. Lots of women do this sort of thing, but in this case, where their images are being used as interference in a divorce is just unhealthy. Jenny is probably far more disturbed than even we realize, if they’re the symbolic narrators for her articles on The Stir.

The female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal family. Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place. — Robert Briffault, The Mothers, Vol. I, p. 191

The female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal family. Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place. — Robert Briffault, The Mothers, Vol. I, p. 191

Zedd is redundant emo-pop, basically a bowerbird…This gift of his to Williams (I know her dad, btw) will make her career, probably… Wow. Jenny really is pathological, so much so that she doesn’t care who sees that she is pathological.

Zedd did not choose Hayley Williams, though she’s talented. Your Dad would know that’s not how these decisions are made.

Zedd’s “redundant emo-pop, basically a bowerbird” sound has Billions of impressions. The technology is advanced as if from 30 or more years in the future, and it’s working to reach the global masses of individuals. The music is channeled through a cast much larger and different than a couple of performers that have deals. The sound and images are designed to become life… with or without the lyrics.

Zedd’s “Clarity” (with the echanting feminine voice of Ellie Goulding) might be one of the Anthems describing “pathological, so much so that she doesn’t care who sees that she is pathological.”

Of course J.E. has tweeted about this song:

It only has 49,367,982 YouTube views… and more than a Billion impression plays worldwide.

While Leif is ignoring “The Rational Male” (book), his wife is encouraged and enchanted by “Let It Go” from Disney brand “Frozen”… Scripted endorsements can be clever. She’s blaming the number of times she’s heard it… on her daughter. This is what we have such songs for. Add to that the fact that Jenny Erikson has a very special series of deals which have included her recent entrance as a regular writer in The Huffington Post.

Bowerbirds are quite amazing. Like them, in globally popular music, it’s matter of where the inspiration for each melody, rift, sound… comes from… how each element is put together. Unlike the bowerbird, in the industry, there are guarantees that the work done by a vast cast will succeed at attracting masses through the treasure and wonder of the work.

Double Wow. Her ex got custody of the daughters including of the daughter of another man that he raised. Her lies and her personal history reveal a yanging gulf in character, like so many liberal women. I predict that if her life facts become revealed then she will be shown to have had an abortion while married during an affair with another married man.

You are correct about the period of influence for organized labor. Suffice to say I live in an area that used to be dominated by the types of jobs you describe. These jobs should have been recognized for the anomaly they were, but people grew to count on them. It is undeniable for those who held them that they were a source of upward mobility for them and theirs.

My beef today is with the policies of the federal government which stifle job creation (via business formation) at every level. The ACA, for example, may not be the final nail in the coffin of what used to be recognized as free enterprise, but it is one of them.

I predict that if her life facts become revealed then she will be shown to have had an abortion while married during an affair with another married man.

After the Obama re-election, I’m curious if any of her baggage will matter, or if it won’t end up being a plus. Frankly, I have no faith in the national electorate, and only slightly more in my state’s electorate, what with all the liberal refugees from the crap states (not to mention a certain country south of us) flowing in to our voting booths. Hopefully I’ll be pleasantly surprised by the election results. But if I am, it will be a surprise.

I was going to offer the prospect of the high wage blue collar job but couldn’t think of a solid example.

Diesel mechanic.

The ones specializing in car and truck engines can easily make over $60k. If you specialize in LARGE industrial diesel engines you can make significantly more.

Can’t remember where I read it (it has been a while), but it was the story of a guy that started a junkyard specialized in tractor-trailer parts. The mechanics at his junkyard all made more than $100k.

If only 45/1000 divorced women over 45 got remarried in 1960, that’s only 4.5%. A miniscule percentage. That would indicate that the chances of an older women divorcing and remarrying have always been low.

1) That she lied about her life story
2) That she was a gold-digger that used a man for money, then dumped him when she was done using him
3) That she had an affair while married
4) That she may or may not of had an abortion while married and not told her husband
5) That a judge decided she apparently had both a drug and alcohol problem

The ones specializing in car and truck engines can easily make over $60k. If you specialize in LARGE industrial diesel engines you can make significantly more.

Can’t remember where I read it (it has been a while), but it was the story of a guy that started a junkyard specialized in tractor-trailer parts. The mechanics at his junkyard all made more than $100k.

Until such time as “they” can find a way to automate the process that a Diesel Mechanic follows such that each step can be done by a robot. The more diagnostic tools are created, the more computers can have programs designed to follow a process step by step, the less it becomes necessary to have a human involved in this process. This (in turn) drives down the value of that labour.

Look at long haul trucking? That used to pay big money. Not anymore. Pretty soon that job wont exist as we have vehicles that are now smart enough to drive themselves. All the thinking aspects of driving a vehicle (all the decision making process) has been automated and digitized. The same could be done (eventually) with Diesel mechanics. All it takes is enough software developers to understand every step of the process and business analysts to gather all the requirements of the process and then they automate it.

If only 45/1000 divorced women over 45 got remarried in 1960, that’s only 4.5%. A miniscule percentage. That would indicate that the chances of an older women divorcing and remarrying have always been low.

It is remarriages per 1,000 divorced population, per year. So in 1960 45 out of 1,000 divorced women aged 45-64 remarried, or as you point out 4.5%. But this is in one year, and the results are cumulative. Over ten years this works out to (roughly) 45% of divorced women in that age group remarried back in the 1960s. Now that has dropped to roughly 19% over ten years. These ten year figures aren’t precise, but they give a rough idea. Part of the problem with extrapolating it out this way is each year the woman goes without remarrying (and therefore gets older) her chances of remarriage also drops a bit. We can see this in the very different remarriage rates across age brackets, but in reality it isn’t a step function where a man or woman goes from one probability of remarriage at age 64 to a hugely different probability of remarriage at 65.

@IBB, I would counter that the reason over the road truck drivers don’t make what they once did is because the supply is so much greater than it once was, and technology has made it easier to stay connected with friends and family, less of a lonely pursuit.

So, it may be that automated driving is coming to the OTR trucking industry, but I wouldn’t count on it arriving any time soon.

I remember reading an article several years ago about how the local BMW mechanics were making close to $100K/yr at the dealership because in addition to knowing the mechanical systems, they also had to know the electrical and computer systems as well.

At the same time, people have been gleefully predicting the end of computer programmers and administrators for decades, and the more they automate, the more complicated things become and the more people are needed.

“I was going to offer the prospect of the high wage blue collar job but couldn’t think of a solid example.”

Plumber. The ones around here charge a dollar a minute (twice that for emergency calls on holidays and weekends) and this is a medium-small college town with lots of do-it-yourself hippie types. I suspect that they’d be able to charge even more in a city.

There will always be jobs for men who are smart (IQ smart, not necessarily educated). I agree that the so called “blue collar” jobs that used to allow even guys a little on the slow side earn a decent income are fading away. Where it will lead is anyone’s guess.

“…the proportion of male registered nurses has more than tripled since 1970, rising from 3 to 10 percent… Twelve percent of nursing students in the College of Nursing this year are male…The weak economy has attracted more people [males] into nursing programs…The stigma of being a [male] nurse also is decreasing.”

What do you think feminists will say 10 years from now, when 25% of nursing students are men? Probably something like “it’s not fair that men are intruding on traditionally female career fields.”

2) Polygamy will become a de facto accepted practice.

Women (as a group) are outpacing men in education, income, and career success, and will continue to do so. The meme currently being pushed that a successful career woman can marry down will flop. Women (as a group) will not be happy marrying men who earn less or are less successful.

“Where have all the good men gone” will be spun into “there are not–and never will be–enough good men to go around.” Women (as a group) will decide they are better off sharing one of the few “good men” with 1 or 2 other women than they are supporting a loser husband.

Given that sex and parenthood out of wedlock as well as a long string of multiple sex partners is currently holds zero stigma (and in some cases is cheered) in modern society, the idea of two or more women “living in sin” with a single man isn’t a giant leap from where we are now. It’s just one or two more steps down the staircase.

3) There will be large numbers of men who have no chance of ever having a relationship with a woman, much less marrying.

Whether that will result in a herbivore movement as in Japan, hordes of angry men disrupting society (as in Islamic men willing to blow themselves up for a chance at 40 virgin wives in heaven), war to thin out the number of men, or government sanctioned oppression/slavery to keep men under control is anyone’s guess. It won’t end well though.

Another reason “good jobs” for men will continue to dwindle is the fact that fewer men are getting a college degree of any kind. And this isn’t going to change. Mention that 60% of college students are women, and the typical response is (1) applause and (2) comments about how we should be getting more women to go to college.

Yes, I know a high percentage of women get junk college degrees, but you still have to deal with the fact that a significant number of jobs (particularly corporate jobs) have a college degree as a requirement (any college degree–the major and school are meaningless–such is the poor quality of the primary education system). A requirement they won’t waive under any circumstances, because if they hire a male without a degree instead of a woman with a degree they open themselves up to a discrimination lawsuit and punishment by the government.

Men without degrees get locked out of a lot of corporate jobs they are perfectly qualified to handle. I expect this trend to get worse for men, not better.

A degree earned at night from the local community U would benefit most men as much as a degree from a nationally known university.

Deti said It’s interesting to see how that [remarriage statistics for men] do[es]n’t line up with the conventional wisdom I was raised with — that men NEED to remarry; that men NEED a woman in their lives; that men just don’t do well alone and NEED to have a woman caring for them; etc.

I’ll be generous here and allow that maybe in the past middle-aged men in the wake widowhood or divorce were at least somewhat eager to remarry. But that was in the pre-feminism era when most women were actually still … well, feminine and retained at least SOME loving, nurturing qualities that, even in their own middle age, attracted men to them.

Today, any sane middle-aged man who has been through the frivorce meat grinder at the hands of a selfish, frigid, hateful harpy is not about to risk putting himself through that kind of hell again, knowing that nearly all of the “available” women out there are various degrees of clone of the bitch he was once married to who made his life pure hell. Even if he is one of the relatively rare ones who has been widowed after years of marriage to the most wonderful wife a man could ever want, he knows that finding another like her amongst the feminist detritus that is today’s “available” pool of women is even less likely than finding the Holy Grail and the Ark of the Covenant in the same place, on the same day.

In short, fewer middle-aged men are remarrying today* because it is an unavoidable fact that today’s generation of women, unlike their grandmothers, are not worthy of marriage and are unacceptable marriage risks.

(* this author, should he ever become widowed or frivorced, will not even consider remarriage)

1 (men entering female career fields) is happening now as noted in the linked article.

As far as 3 (men not having hopes of marrying), I read an article last year discussing the return of slavery as a tool to “motivate and control” men who had dropped out of society. It was quite chilling in its matter-of-fact tone. I doubt any modern system would be called slavery. More likely they would be convicted of some crime (like not being attractive enough to women) and forced to work off their “debt to society.” Really, we’re not that far from it. How hard would it be for a politician to argue that convicts should be paying their own way in prison, instead of forcing society to pay for their upkeep? And the larger the prison population becomes, the easier it is for a politician to make that case.

At the same time, people have been gleefully predicting the end of computer programmers and administrators for decades, and the more they automate, the more complicated things become and the more people are needed.

So, I think that it depends.

Those jobs are paid well because they are NOT well formed.

Programming and business analysis requires thinking. Those are NOT well formed jobs that can truly be automated.

Machines can’t “think.” Computers and robots do exactly what you tell them to do. It is the programmers that must “think” to tell the computer what to do to solve a problem….

…and you can’t really be an effective programmer with an IQ less than 100.

As far as 3 (men not having hopes of marrying), I read an article last year discussing the return of slavery as a tool to “motivate and control” men who had dropped out of society. It was quite chilling in its matter-of-fact tone.

Music has many, many interesting properties. Humans have been singing for a very long time. Innoculating children and young people against the earwigs provided by Disney and others is long term process.

Question to ponder: people who listen to classical music tend to have longer time horizons. Is there a causal link? If so, does it point only one way, or both ways?

Question to ponder: the plasticity of the human brain is well established, and overturns many beliefs that are part of modern education. I wonder if PET scans would reveal actual physical differences between those who listen to Mozart, etc. vs. those who fill their heads with pop pablum?

8to12Diesel mechanic.
The ones specializing in car and truck engines can easily make over $60k. If you specialize in LARGE industrial diesel engines you can make significantly more.

Cosign. I know a couple of men who do this. Even a truck stop diesel wrencher can do all right.

Another one: HVAC tech. When the A/C quits working in a large mall, they don’t ask “how much” they ask “when”. Ditto the freezer cases at the local food mart / Walmart. Steady maintenance contracts can bring in a baseline income, with custom work on top of that.

Women (as a group) are outpacing men in education, income, and career success, and will continue to do so. The meme currently being pushed that a successful career woman can marry down will flop. Women (as a group) will not be happy marrying men who earn less or are less successful.

“Where have all the good men gone” will be spun into “there are not–and never will be–enough good men to go around.” Women (as a group) will decide they are better off sharing one of the few “good men” with 1 or 2 other women than they are supporting a loser husband.

Given that sex and parenthood out of wedlock as well as a long string of multiple sex partners is currently holds zero stigma (and in some cases is cheered) in modern society, the idea of two or more women “living in sin” with a single man isn’t a giant leap from where we are now. It’s just one or two more steps down the staircase.

There was a Lifetime-made-for-TV-movie about this staring Beau Bridges. He was a medical doctor (made big money) and he had three wives. Because he was a medical doctor and earned big dollars, three women were willing to share him sexually instead of having their own personal husband who earned a mere fraction of the medical doctor.

The same could be said of the HBO series Big Love. Here is a man (Bill Paxton) who owned a small chain of hardware stores and (later in the series) a tiny Wyoming Casino. He had sufficent earning power to provide for 3 different families so he had 3 wives (was working on number 4.)

In effect, this is a foreshadowing of polygamy being a LUXURY for the highest earning men with the highest IQ or physical ability (assuming they are professional athletes.)

Feather BladePlumber. The ones around here charge a dollar a minute (twice that for emergency calls on holidays and weekends) and this is a medium-small college town with lots of do-it-yourself hippie types. I suspect that they’d be able to charge even more in a city.

Cosign this as well. Take a McMansion worth $1,000,000, and render the drains inoperative. You can’t flush the toilet or take a shower. What’s it worth, now? Not much…

I think there was even an episode of Growing Pains where Mike Seaver (Kirk Cameron of all people, see Fireproof) took not one, not two, but THREE dates to his prom because… well, because he was a good looking alpha and the three girls would rather share him (just share being seen with him and walking into prom with him) rather than allow a more beta male to take them one-on-one.

I think there was even an episode of Growing Pains where Mike Seaver (Kirk Cameron of all people, see Fireproof) took not one, not two, but THREE dates to his prom because… well, because he was a good looking alpha and the three girls would rather share him (just share being seen with him and walking into prom with him) rather than allow a more beta male to take them one-on-one.

BTW, I am NOT endorsing slavery. It is an evil practice. Merely pointing out that it could return to a fallen world under a different name.

In addition to the type of slavery forced on men in western societies, slavery is also practiced in other parts of the world (Africa, Asia, and the Dominican Republic). The term used is bonded laborers. Furthermore in Africa Christians are enslaved by muslims on a regular basis.

A guy 53, in shape and well-off has had it with marriage after getting divorce-raped twice… but all the women he meets get hurt because they want to get married and he doesn’t. He wrote to Dear Abby, not wanting to hurt anybody or get bent-over AGAIN, about how to keep marriage off the table and have a stable relationship life so nobody gets hurt. She said he should just bend over again (i.e., “man up”) or enjoy his right hand.

Having only read parts of it, I can’t give a proper assessment – from the parts I have read, it is definitely a feminist work. In the end, it does have some stuff most people on here would object to, and some stuff that they would support (e.g. critique of “sex-positive feminism”).

MarcusD, based solely on what you write, it would appear to be the work of a 2nd stage feminist, most likely an equity feminist, who is concerned that too much 3rd stage raunch feminism might tip over the pedestal.

Further, Levy theorizes that many women internalize the objectifying male gaze that permeates a raunch culture, leading them to participate in self-objectification quite willingly, falsely believing that it is a form of female empowerment and sexual liberation.[15] Despite accounts of numerous women stating that they feel empowered and liberated by aspects of raunch culture, according to Levy there is nothing to support the “conception of raunch culture as a path to liberation rather than oppression.”[16] Others, such as Susan Brownmiller, a well-known American feminist, journalist, author, and activist, share this opinion.[17]

Anonymous
I commented on that article in Yahoo. I’m part of the Dark enlightenment.

greyghost • 18 hrs ago Remove
pre-nups mean nothing. Do not get married ever again. dirty little secret a woman his age and available for marriage is most likely divorced and knows what to do during a divorce.

Shared a bit of it with the husband as well. I was primarily interested in seeing if what they documented lined up with what we have witnessed. It was fairly accurate, although I’m not sure if all of the proposed solutions are workable solutions. Others were quite reasonable but the state is wedded to doing things the way they have been..

Today, any sane middle-aged man who has been through the frivorce meat grinder at the hands of a selfish, frigid, hateful harpy is not about to risk putting himself through that kind of hell again, knowing that nearly all of the “available” women out there are various degrees of clone of the bitch he was once married to who made his life pure hell.

Yep. I’ve pretty much shifted my target demographic to the 20-25 range. If I marry a girl and people call me a cradle-robber, I’ll just smile and tell them envy is a sin. It’s just not worth the trouble unless I’m going to get most of her best years of fertility and beauty. A girl 30 or over would have to be something really special — a 9-10 and still keeping in great shape, plus very into the structure of biblical marriage — to be considered.

That’s not because I’m so awesome that I deserve a 10. It’s because the main thing a woman has to offer is her youth. If I’m only getting half her childbearing years, then that turns her 10 into a 5, doesn’t it? As a practical matter, if she’s 30, that means half the kids we could have had, half the sex we could have had, half the time spent building a life together. And that’s before you take away points for the damage those years of wandering have done to her, on or off the carousel.

“A girl 30 or over would have to be something really special — a 9-10 and still keeping in great shape, plus very into the structure of biblical marriage — to be considered.

That’s not because I’m so awesome that I deserve a 10. It’s because the main thing a woman has to offer is her youth. If I’m only getting half her childbearing years, then that turns her 10 into a 5, doesn’t it? As a practical matter, if she’s 30, that means half the kids we could have had, half the sex we could have had, half the time spent building a life together. And that’s before you take away points for the damage those years of wandering have done to her, on or off the carousel.”

This is golden red-pill wisdon. It deserves to be on a list permanently posted on Dalrock’s site’s homepage, the same way Roissy has his “Commandments of Poon” list on his site. Thank you for posting it, Cail.

@Elspeth Re: solutions. The authors don’t indulge in handwringing, which is a plus, but do categorically admit they are descring not prescribing “it is hard to know where to start to bring about change.”

The suggestion to change society so that, as in the past, men are incentivized to produce by getting respect from women for producing, apparently is too loathesome a concept to consider.

Thanks, Luke. I think people in the past had a more practical view of marriage, which helped. When it’s about having kids and helping each other in establishing a family, it’s easier to see how important it is to start early, compared to when you see marriage as something you do so that you can live/sleep with someone you really dig. If you think of marriage as truly for life, and expect a lot of work and struggle mixed in with the high points along the way, it’s easier to see why you’d want to start when you’re young and energetic.

Of course, by the same token, I don’t have as much to offer a wife as I did 20 years ago either. But since the main thing a man brings to marriage is his investment, that doesn’t drop off as quickly as beauty and fertility do for a woman. My best earning and providing years could still be ahead of me, and some of the years she’s missed out on weren’t anything to brag about in that regard anyway. A 40-year-old man is about the equivalent of a 25-year-old girl — both right at the peak of what they bring to the marriage. The obvious downside is that he may die early and leave her with young children to raise, but that’s always a possibility.

“men are incentivized to produce by getting respect from women for producing, apparently is too loathesome a concept to consider.”

Yes. To some you are supposed to do it (whatever “it” is) simply because others think you should; or because God commands it. Yes, God commands, but He almost always promised that those who obeyed His commandments and directives would receive the desires of their hearts — peace, children, legacies, wealth, comfort, long life. (Notice I’m NOT saying here that God promises any man a wife, or any woman a husband. Nor for that matter a new Lexus, or a 6 bedroom colonial in the suburbs.) For example: the Fifth Commandment: honor thy father and mother, that it may go well with you, and you live long on the earth.

The point is that incentives matter — a point which seems lost on some folks in and around these parts.

It’s because the main thing a woman has to offer is her youth. If I’m only getting half her childbearing years, then that turns her 10 into a 5, doesn’t it? As a practical matter, if she’s 30, that means half the kids we could have had, half the sex we could have had, half the time spent building a life together. And that’s before you take away points for the damage those years of wandering have done to her, on or off the carousel.

Of course, by the same token, I don’t have as much to offer a wife as I did 20 years ago either. But since the main thing a man brings to marriage is his investment, that doesn’t drop off as quickly as beauty and fertility do for a woman. My best earning and providing years could still be ahead of me, and some of the years she’s missed out on weren’t anything to brag about in that regard anyway. A 40-year-old man is about the equivalent of a 25-year-old girl — both right at the peak of what they bring to the marriage. The obvious downside is that he may die early and leave her with young children to raise, but that’s always a possibility.

The reason that this is so powerful and on point is because it acknowledges what marriage actually is.
A legal platform to plunder someone else’s resources.

Men want sex. The Bible condemns both fornication & adultery, and rape in certain cases. Man’s law condemns rape(with an ever widening definition) and prostitution in most states. Pornography is legally acceptable but spiritually and sometimes morally unacceptable and bankrupt. So the only thing that both God and man seems to consistently smile on is wives. Marriage is supposed to be a scenario where a man can get his sexual satisfaction and it’s all good.
That however, is rarely the case.
Women want status and resources. They have to work their charms to get a high status man, but the State guarantees them resources once married, or even impregnated, married or not, high status man or not.
This is almost always the case.

So you have to bring something to the table for the other person to plunder. If you’re a man, your status and resources determine your options among women. If you’re a woman, your youth & beauty will do it, and if you don’t put out during the marriage, you still get to plunder his resources. That’s “love” for ya folks.

Re: incentives. To be as clear as mud, there is only one real incentive women can give to men, and making sandwiches is a distant second. Gifts are fine provided they can be exchanged for something he wants i.e. to the extent they are fungible in the sexual marketplace. Quality time is the vacuous crap he will suffer through provided he gets what he wants. Words of affirmation are fine provided she is responding positively to his compliments and saying “yes” to what he wants. Acts of service are fine (sandwiches) provided they serve to help him get what he wants. I.e. Physical touch.

A man’s love language is NEVER satisfied by him rubbing her feet and her saying “Thanks.” It is complete total error for her to suppose that “He LIKES scratching my back more than I like scratching his. Besides, my back is itchier.” A man who services women is a beta, attempting to act like a woman in order to deal with women.

The other day I heard something that struck me, from a kid no less: you have to find someone you like, get married, then learn to love the person.

I think that’s much closer to the traditional understanding of marriage than what we have today. People didn’t go into marriage already in love in the romantic sense. Certainly not in the days of arranged marriage, but even in other eras I don’t think that was the case. What they did have was a shared commitment to the same goals: children, family, home, etc., and a shared understanding of how to accomplish those goals. By working together toward those things, they came to love each other — maybe not in the tingly, “I must have that person” sense, but at least in the sense of respect and healthy dependence on each other.

They understood that it was a trade, each person sacrificing for the other. Both gave his body and freedom to the other, and the man sacrificed his back and his time to provide, while the woman sacrificed her figure for babies. They did it because the payoff was worth the sacrifice.

Nowadays, people seem to want marriage to be sacrifice-free — at least for the woman. You’re not supposed to have to give up your youth, or your fascinating career, or your old boyfriends, or your social life, or your control over when you have sex or get pregnant, or anything at all. Marriage now is supposed to be about having a great time with someone you’re head-over-heels in love with; so if the crush fades or you start to feel like it’s costing you something, why stay in it?

Yep. I’ve pretty much shifted my target demographic to the 20-25 range. If I marry a girl and people call me a cradle-robber, I’ll just smile and tell them envy is a sin.

Very good response. Envy is a sin. Of course if you are in your early 40s (or older), I’d say at this point (by your OWN restrictions in what you want in a woman for a wife) you can pretty much forget ever getting married.

The judge was a woman and the baby needs resources. The feminist imperative means extracting resoarces from the father at all costs. And the contract he wrote with the two lesbians is nullified by the state as you can not contract away the financial responsibility of supporting the children you father.

No True Man fails to provide child support to his sperm-donated offspring.

Basically, the lesson here is dont ever sell (and never donate) your sperm. Never ever because you are financially responsible.

I had this conversation with a liberal friend of mine you jacked off in a cup to help put himself through Boston University. So how did he do it? He answered an ad in the school paper that should not have been there. He answered some questions at their lab. He took an IQ test. And he sold his sperm for $35 a sample for almost two full years. He donated every three days. He did the math, earned almost $9,000 jacking off in a cup. I told him (almost 22 years ago) that those women that used his sperm to make their babies, could sue him for financial support. He laughed and said not a chance.

Shared a bit of it with the husband as well. I was primarily interested in seeing if what they documented lined up with what we have witnessed. It was fairly accurate, although I’m not sure if all of the proposed solutions are workable solutions.

I read that paper looking for certain missing things, and sure enough, there they weren’t. The “dog that did not bark” from Sherlock Holmes.

* Tap dancing around the issue of men’s-fault divorce. There is a limp noodle statement about custody after divorce, and one small observation about “job assistance” being useful to men in terms of enabling them to pay child support. But no mention of “deadbeat dad’s debtor’s prison”, and I did not see any mention of it in the section on law enforcement, either. Incarceration is up, it must be due to profiling, it couldn’t be due to changes in “what you can go to jail for” since 1986, nah. Some man who works as a day laborer is told to pay a couple hundred a month, falls behind, eventually winds up in court, his arrears are trotted out and off he goes to jail – while he’s in jail, the money owed keeps on piling up, and there’s no way he’ll ever pay it off after a while. Why is this not worthy of a mention, eh?

* No discussion at all of the impact on marriage or LTR’s of “momma’s got the purse”.

* No discussion of the impact of the Duluth model at all, despite the fact that it must have an effect on the number of men in this subgroup who wind up in jail.

Others were quite reasonable but the state is wedded to doing things the way they have been..

“This is true, and not mere hearsay. I charted the remarriage rate trends by age bracket for those over 45 in this post.”

Your chart is slightly off and misleading, Dalrock. The distance between 1960 and 1990 (a period of 30 years) is equal to the distance of 1990 to 2010, when that distance should be a third less. When you shorten the chart, you do not have the “leveling out effect” (at least for the women) you show which implies that at least for the women the remarriage rates are stabilizing. The rates are not, they’re dropping like a stone, and even more sharply for the men over the last twenty years.

When you actually look at the numbers correctly, sometime in the next sixteen years (and more likely ten) the remarriage rate for men over 45 will probably be where it is for the 65+ older women and the women will be somewhere below that.

“What they did have was a shared commitment to the same goals: children, family, home, etc., and a shared understanding of how to accomplish those goals. By working together toward those things, they came to love each other”

Yes, but I think they accepted they needed to depend on each other; and perhaps through that came to “love” of sorts. It probably wasn’t romantic love like everyone around here idolizes; but there was attachment and common purpose through their shared goals. That, and the fact that you couldn’t get out of your marriage just because “I don’t wanna do this anymore”, kept most people together. I suspect if no-fault divorce had been the law in the 1940s and 50s, divorce would have been much more common place then.

“Marriage now is supposed to be about having a great time with someone you’re head-over-heels in love with; so if the crush fades or you start to feel like it’s costing you something, why stay in it?”

Yep. This is the hedonic marriage model we have now moved to, and we moved to that from the traditional marriage model. Not hard to see how we got here – women wanted economic freedom and sexual freedom. They wanted complete license to choose who to marry, when to marry, and to decide the parameters of the marriage contract – independently even of the men they would be deigning to marry. And powerful men decided to give them these rights.

Not entirely true, IBB, that every sperm donor will be potentially on the hook for child support, unless there is a change in the laws.

The man in the Kansas story donated sperm to a lesbian couple. They didn’t go through a physician to do it; and didn’t do the proper paperwork. So because the legal technicalities weren’t in place, the man has to pay. His defense was also weak – that he’d waived his rights to paternity and therefore shouldn’t have to pay child support. Lame – a child has a right and a need for support regardless of whether his bio-dad shows up or not. In today’s society, a child’s right to and need for financial support always trumps the father’s rights for anything. Every time.

But certainly, this is a lesson to men – if you’re going to donate sperm, make damn sure the legal technicalities are in place, and that there are no connections – none whatsoever – between you and the baby mama.

Things like this show why it’s a bad idea to try to contract for human life – surrogate motherhood, sperm donation, all of it – it’s a bad idea.

There’s a whole lot more “turkey baster donors” out there, although not all of them will be vulnerable to this for various reasons. For now there is a carve-out in the law regarding official sperm donation, because of the way the original sperm banks were set up back in the 60’s, so IBB’s friend is still safe. This does put the pedestalizing judges on the horns of a dilemma, in a way: they can serve the Female Imperative short term by removing the veil of secrecy from sperm donors and open the way to child support, but that kills sperm banks in the not very long term. Or they can serve the FI in the long term by keeping things as they are, however this sets them up for “War on Women” attacks.

Once again, it is the informal nature of the “donation” in this case that leads to a child support obligation, because it appears to me in the eyes of the law, this man is just like Joe Schmoe who had a one-night stand with Suzy Slutcheeks & knocked her up. The same risks would surely apply if Suzy and her lesbian girlfriend suddenly invited Joe to a three-way weekend – the careful man would wonder if one or both of them just happened to be ovulating…

IBB said: “Best of luck to you Cail in chasing the babies” [20-25 year old women, LOL].

One of IBB’s early comments on this site was about how he enjoyed being the boy toy of an older female lawyer … but the men at her firm treated him as her bitch … so, consequently, men must stay away from younger women. WTF?!?

Re-skimming that paper referenced above, I’m struck by the fact that all their policy prescriptions are just tinkering around the edges of the problem(s). Re-arranging the deck chairs, as it were. There is a huge, huge blind spot in that article with regard to marriage and family law; they authors either cannot see, or do not want to see, how policy drives incentives and thus points toward certain outcomes and away from others.

Elspeth…the state is wedded to doing things the way they have been…

And not just the state. The self-annointed Deep Thinkers in various Institutes as well.

The man in the Kansas story donated sperm to a lesbian couple. They didn’t go through a physician to do it; and didn’t do the proper paperwork. So because the legal technicalities weren’t in place, the man has to pay.

So this is more a credentialling and rent-seeking issue. That is why he pays.

He pays because the two lesbians that wanted his sperm did NOT pay for a medical doctor to insert the sperm, NOR did they pay for a lawyer to act on the interest of both parties. So he pays because HE didn’t get a lawyer to protect himself and then send them the legal bill?

So basically, he pays because he was a trusting soul who didn’t think he would get taken by two grifting c-nts? That is basically where he is at….

With regards to protecting your assets in the event of a frivorce etc. Prenuptial agreements are worthless for what we want because they cannot be unconscionable when entered into or when executed, but that’s the whole point. You want her to get nothing. What else can you do?

There are asset protection trusts, both domestic and foreign. I spent a couple of days reading the articles on Forbes.com by Jay Adkisson regarding asset protection. A number of his articles deal with DAPT/FAPT (domestic or foreign asset protection trusts) and a couple of those dealt with divorce. Assuming his commentary is reasonably correct, a FAPT is only useful if you are also are or are willing to absent yourself from the US if the time comes where a US judge is trying to get assets out of the trust to satisfy a claim against you, else you can sit in prison for contempt. Also, one case specifically noted that the trust was being put aside because it’s stated goal was to protect assets from claimants even though it was set up years before the claim arose.

“Of course, by the same token, I don’t have as much to offer a wife as I did 20 years ago either.”

In terms of immediate investment, you have less to offer. But you have more to offer in the sense that you are more naive and enthusiastic about women, plus more ruled by your hormones, than your 30 or 40-year-old self.

Of course, when this issue is raised, women always complain about their male peers not being financially established. They want none of the old piece of wisdom that to be the wife of a general, one must marry a lieutenant.

One of my favorite articles from John Derbyshire has this bit about marriage in the past, at least among the non-elites. He’s talking about a novel:

The narrator…is in conversation with one of his sergeants, a man with a working-class background, from a small town in Wales. The sergeant has mentioned a relative of his, who got married a few years previously. “And how are they now?” asks Jenkins. “Why, all right,” replies the sergeant, somewhat puzzled. “Why should they not be?” For the worldly, upper-crust Londoner it is natural to ask how a marriage is going; for the provincial proletarian, the question is baffling. They met, they got married, that’s the end of it. How could anything else happen to them now? The sergeant has, to use Orwell’s words again, “the working-class outlook which takes it as a matter of course that youth and adventure — almost, indeed, individual life — end with marriage.”

When people see marriage as irrevocable, they’re bound to work harder at making it work. I think most people get that, but I think it goes deeper: they’re also bound to start with lower expectations. Their parents are going to warn them about the lows, so they can be prepared to handle them. The best way to avoid disappointment is to make sure your expectations aren’t too high from the start. People didn’t used to expect great romance: men expected sex, housework, and childcare; women expected a roof over their head, protection, and provisions. More than that was gravy, so they appreciated it.

Say you’re travelling on foot across a new frontier, and you come to a steep cliff going down, which stretches both directions as far as you can see. The cliff is smooth enough that you can safely slide down, but there would be no way to climb back up. Before taking that step, you’re going to do two things to try to make sure it’s the right decision: 1) spend enough time scoping out as much as you can see of the land below, to see if it looks promising; and 2) keep your expectations low of what you might find there. If you slide down expecting to find Nirvana, you’re going to regret that step for the rest of your life.

But if you have a rope long enough to tie to a tree and reach the bottom, so you can climb back up — society-sanctioned divorce — your expectations don’t matter, nor does it matter whether you look first. You can fill your head with visions of forests full of easily-picked fruit, streams lined with gold, and nymphomaniac nymphs, and jump right off. If you’re disappointed because the fruit was sour and the nymphs were all blondes, just climb back up. The climb may be difficult and painful, but it’s there, and that makes all the difference.

IBB (who fears to reply)So basically, he pays because he was a trusting soul who didn’t think he would get taken by two grifting c-nts? That is basically where he is at….

Based on what I know about “turkey baster” deals like this, he’s likely some sort of beta orbiter who likes one or both of the women and when they asked him to do them a favor, he did. Maybe he got to watch, or something. Yeah, there’s a certain “Letters to Penthouse” aspect here, but this sort of thing was going on in certain coastal enclaves (cough”Marin County”cough) over 25 years ago.

I doubt that any of them thought about the legal aspects at the time. And if the child support arm of the state had not gotten involved in some way, he’d be unscathed.

It is worth noting that baby rabies will affect women even when they are allegedly not attracted to men, at certain ages. Almost as if they are wired that way…

One of IBB’s early comments on this site was about how he enjoyed being the boy toy of an older female lawyer … but the men at her firm treated him as her bitch … so, consequently, men must stay away from younger women. WTF?!?

Not relevant. She didn’t chase me to marry me eon. These situations are not linked.

By Cail’s infernal sexual pervert’s logic, a man should never marry a woman unless she is a breeder ready to have his babies. Otherwise she is unmarriable. That is basically where his logic takes him. He’s wrong. And so are you.

If a man already has children and his wife DIES, and he knows how important (vital infact) it is for his young sons and daughters to have a new mom in the house (even if she is only a step-mom, certainly never going to replace their mom) because he needs help, does that mean he should only chase 23 year old girls to be their stepmom? What kind of stepmom would she be?

Mike Brady married Carol (a woman his own age, maybe even older) because his three boys needed a mom. She never had his children yet they had a Patriarical marriage. He made the rules, she followed them. He decided the discipline for all the kids and even his step-daughters followed his rules. My only consternation with it was that Carol was divorced and not a widow and Mike was commiting adultry according to Luke 16:18, not that anything in the New Testament would have mattered to Sherwood Schwartz.

The greater the risk, the greater the reward must be to justify taking that risk.

What’s the risk for a donor? That he may be forced to pay child support for 18 (or 21 or 25) years. The judge in this case made it clear that (1) if every t isn’t crossed and every i isn’t dotted from a legal standpoint, that the risk will become a reality and (2) that the state–with all of it’s legal and financial resources–can intervene; break any private contract; and force the donor to pay child support.

What’s the reward for the donor? $35.00; maybe a sense of satisfaction from helping someone else have a child.

The reward is low (virtually zero) while the risk (as unlikely as it may be) is extremely high. It will only take one or two of these cases to make donations a thing of the past.

My only consternation with it was that Carol was divorced and not a widow

That’s so interesting, because when I was a kid, there were reruns of that show on, and I always assumed that both Carol and Mike were widowed.

I guess because there never seemed to be any drama with babymomma/babydaddy, babydaddy’s new ho’ wife who the kids saw naked on the last visit to babydaddy’s house, etc. etc. The sun always shines on tee vee.

Cail said Nowadays, people seem to want marriage to be sacrifice-free — at least for the woman.

Absolutely. For proof, one need look no farther than the wedding ceremony, an event that in Marriage 2.0 has become all about her rather than all about them.

We have got to end (at all costs) No Fault Divorce.

Ronnie, I loved you in the 1980s sir. I loved you even more when we got Clinton. But I’m sorry I have to say this and I don’t want to speak ill of the dead, but the longer I live, the less respect I have for you Mr President for what you got started in California in 1969. You pretty much f-cked us sir.

That’s so interesting, because when I was a kid, there were reruns of that show on, and I always assumed that both Carol and Mike were widowed.

Yes you never see Marcia-Marcia-Marcia’s biological father, nor do you ever find out if he sends a child support check to Mike. Sherwood probably figured there was nothing but darkness there so why have it on the show? Dealing with Ralph Reed’s homosexual antics was probably more than he could deal with anyway.

@feeriker, I have a friend who is 27 and was complaining recently that quite a lot of the attractive young women he knows at university are going around with the men in their late 30s and early 40s. He said it seemed to be the most natural thing in the world for them.

IBB seems to assume that Cail’s options for prospective brides are limited to the barrel bottom that is today’s young Amerikan women and that no suitable women exist anywhere else on the planet.

Oh I don’t care if Cail goes and buys a 23 year old Russian bride off the internet. That’s his business. But if he’s in his 40s or 50s and his wife must be 20-25, he’s still a pervert. There is some sexual deviancy there.

To be perfectly honest, I thought that Cail was still married. I don’t keep track of people’s personal history here at Dalrock’s blog. Its just not that important to me.

“By Cail’s infernal sexual pervert’s logic, a man should never marry a woman unless she is a breeder ready to have his babies. Otherwise she is unmarriable. That is basically where his logic takes him. He’s wrong. And so are you.”

Pffft. This debate again?

A 50 year old man being attracted to and wanting to marry a 25 year old woman is not perversion because it’s essentially “Man wants to marry attractive woman”.

Even more simply, look at it this way: If a woman wants Cail’s money, resources, time, commitment and investment, then it will be Cail’s rules she will have to follow and Cail’s requirements she will have to meet.

Even more simply, look at it this way: If a woman wants Cail’s money, resources, time, commitment and investment, then it will be Cail’s rules she will have to follow and Cail’s requirements she will have to meet.

Even more simply, as wrong as Cail is, is also as wrong a gold-digger is. If you can’t say these vows…

* for better or for worse
* for richer or for poorer
* in sickness or in health

You aren’t supposed to marry for money. Because money and earning power could go away, instantly, gone. So (if you married for money the way you are saying the 23 year old girl does with the 50 year old man) does that mean you end the marriage if he loses his money?

That’s marriage 2.0. That is not Patriarical. That should not be endorsed on this blog.

Thanks, I wouldn’t have seen that if you hadn’t quoted it. I’ll adjust my letterhead.

So being attracted to women in their 20s makes a man a sexual pervert, huh? And not just an ordinary one, but “infernal” at that. Good to know. I guess I’d better not tell IBB about the time, when I was about 35, I was at this party and this girl was making eyes at me, and I found out later she was 16…

Of course, he’s lying when he says I said she “must” be that young, implying that it’s some kind of fetish. I simply said that’s where I’m going to focus my attention, because that’s where the bulk of the marriage-worthy women are. Mostly that means the next time a college girl seems to be smiling at me a lot, I’m not going to think, “She’s cute, but she’s too young for me.” I’m going to go ahead and approach. But as I also said, I’m not ruling out an older girl; she’s just going to have to have a lot to offer to make up for her age.

If I could choose, I’d probably rather have a hot, fit 30-year-old with no (other) red flags than a 23-year-old. I’d probably be more comfortable living with someone a bit closer to my generation, so I don’t have to explain my ancient references to things like “albums.” But those unicorns are too rare to sit around waiting for one, while there are college girls roaming around who might be interested.

So being attracted to women in their 20s makes a man a sexual pervert, huh? And not just an ordinary one, but “infernal” at that.

Well, I guess that means that the majority of men, in the majority of cultures throughout human history (including the culture of ancient Israel and early Christendom) were not just perverts, but infernal perverts. A most enlightening piece of information.

I’m sure, IBB, that a gift of thanks from God Himself is on its way to you, in gratitude for your pointing out something to Him that He Himself apparently overlooked. I’m sure He is now busy reversing Himself, condemning to eternity in hell all of those God-fearing pious men throughout history who committed the unpardonable, “infernal” sin of marrying women much younger than themselves. I seriously doubt, however, that they are as appreciative of you as God is for correcting the oversight.

That’s marriage 2.0. That is not Patriarical. That should not be endorsed on this blog.

Wrong. People marry for a constellation of reasons. Women tend to include {money} (a/k/a resources) along with {potential to make money} in their set of requirements. Men tend to include {health, beauty, youth} in the complex that constitutes the set of ideal partner. That doesn’t mean that women are golddiggers or men are perverts. They’re being prudent to pick the best partner they can, and resources / youth play into that.

The man who hangs out drinking with his friends all day, every day, with no job history, is the equivalent of the 40 year old divorcee or carousel rider. They’re both worthless losers, in equal measure, in the eyes of the opposite sex — at least as far as marriage is concerned.

The attributes we find attractive are hard wired into humanity because they work well. This is as it should be.

Your chart is slightly off and misleading, Dalrock. The distance between 1960 and 1990 (a period of 30 years) is equal to the distance of 1990 to 2010, when that distance should be a third less. When you shorten the chart, you do not have the “leveling out effect” (at least for the women) you show which implies that at least for the women the remarriage rates are stabilizing. The rates are not, they’re dropping like a stone, and even more sharply for the men over the last twenty years.

The scale of the chart is problematic, and I wasn’t able to find a way to fix this in Open Office. I should probably do some more investigation here for future use, but the downside to free (and works on linux) is sometimes corner case functionality is either a pain or non existent. I normally note that in the text but I looked at the original post and don’t see a note there.

@Anon Reader

…I’m struck by the fact that all their policy prescriptions are just tinkering around the edges of the problem(s). Re-arranging the deck chairs, as it were. There is a huge, huge blind spot in that article with regard to marriage and family law; they authors either cannot see, or do not want to see, how policy drives incentives and thus points toward certain outcomes and away from others.
Elspeth

…the state is wedded to doing things the way they have been…

And not just the state. The self-annointed Deep Thinkers in various Institutes as well.

The blind spot here is fascinating. As I’ve mentioned in recent posts I’m convinced they truly haven’t considered the costs of feminism with respect to men’s incentives regarding marriage and the ultimate impact on GNP/tax revenue. Even papers which seem to get it, which point out that marriage motivates men and that there is a selection bias regarding which men get married never manage to put this together. The general assumption in the sphere I think is that the elites understand the ramifications of the policies, and have already decided to ride the ship all the way down. In my view it is much more interesting; they are wedded to the policies all right, but they are just now getting the inkling that we are taking on a bit of water. What we’ve seen so far is a combination of bluster, complaints that weak men are ruining feminism, and brief emotional breakdowns. The real show has yet to begin.

FYI, in The Brady Bunch, both spouses were widow(er)s. This was explained in the very first episode, in which Carol and Mike get married, and then never mentioned again.

That said, I recall reading an interview with Sherwood Schwartz in which he said that his original premise for the show was to have two divorcees getting married. The only reason that didn’t happen is because of network objections. The suits in New York said it was too “controversial” and they didn’t want to unduly shock middle America. (The show premiered in 1969.)

Nonetheless, Schwartz continued, by allowing him to show a “blended family” in the age of divorce, he believed that the show accomplished what he originally intended it to do, namely, to normalize and legitimize “blended families,” aka, divorce and remarriage.

So being attracted to women in their 20s makes a man a sexual pervert, huh?

No.

But refusing to marry a woman over the age of 25 (particularly if you are in your 40s or 50s) most certainly does.

Young women are sexy and attractive. That doesn’t mean that you solely base your deicision on marrying her based only on her youth, looks, and fertility. But that is exactly what you’ve said. Assume you marry a young girl.

* She will get old. Do you trade her in for two girls half her age when she hits 48?
* She may or may not be fertile. Does that mean you can instantly divorce her if she can’t have your child? (What about in sickness and in health Cail?)
* She gets into an accident and her face is disfigured, she is no longer sexy. Does that end the marriage?

You see God in His infinate wisdom (and it is infinate) set up some pretty straight forward rules to follow in marriage. And all of those rules you can choose to follow them (or not.) It is entirely within your control if you want to follow God’s law. I’m not saying I don’t understand your desires, I do. But it isn’t healthy, long term.

There is a lot more I want to say on this (particularly the stuff about young girls not knowing what they want at age 21 or whatever and their regret about marrying an old wrinkly fart like you) but I think you get what I’m trying to say.

Also note that, to soften up the impact on traditional America, all the girls take the last name “Brady” even though they are well above infancy. (As does Carol, of course.) Needless to say, this would never, ever happent today. Probably mom would revert to her “maiden name” (snort) and the daughters would keep their father’s name. Or names, if there were more than one daddy, also more likely today.

IBB, Cail can defend himself, but I just want to point out that your three bullet points are OT, non sequitur, irrelevant straw men.

Beyond this, he’s already said that he has not “ruled out” anyone over 25, in fact he would prefer 30 if he could find the right mix of traits, but presuming that to be rare, he’s focusing his search elsewhere for now.

BTW, if we are to go by the Bible, then please note what the Bible says about when a woman is ready for marriage. It’s a lot younger than 25.

But refusing to marry a woman over the age of 25 (particularly if you are in your 40s or 50s) most certainly does.

Young women are sexy and attractive. That doesn’t mean that you solely base your decision on marrying her based only on her youth, looks, and fertility. But that is exactly what you’ve said. –IBB

Again, not at all what I said, twice now. But keep thinking so, since it’s your favorite hobby-horse. Don’t worry, you wouldn’t want me for a son-in-law anyway.

Yes, I get what you’re trying to say, just like we all have every other time this subject comes up. You have either older daughters you’re afraid are headed for spinsterhood, or younger ones you think are too sweet and innocent and good for a old codger like me because I’d die and leave you with a daughter and grandkids to support (and because I’m an infernal pervert). I completely understand why you wouldn’t want 20ish girls snapping up 40ish guys, or vice versa — it works against your agenda, which you have a perfect right to promote.

But see, I don’t care what you want. That’s nothing personal, just a fact. I care what I want, and what would be best for a woman I might theoretically marry someday, and what God’s will is for me to the extent that I can discern it. That’s pretty much all I care about, as far as potential marriage is concerned. The opinions of other people on whom/whether I should marry? Beyond my priest and a couple close friends, I wouldn’t give a nickel for the opinions of every other damn person in the world. The shaming is wasted.

Re: bunch. I never watch tv and never saw the Brady Bunch, but I’ve got at least one good finger and a functional keyboard, so I found out that in the script Carol Ann Tyler Martin was a divorcee with full custody of three daughters who married Michael Thomas Brady so her children could have a father in their lives. But although the network cut every bit about her being divorced, no alternate explanation of the fate of her husband was ever broadcast. According to wiki her ex-husband was going to reconcile with her in a planned 6th season.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_The_Brady_Bunch_characters#Carol_Brady

According to wiki her ex-husband was going to reconcile with her in a planned 6th season.

Schwartz booted Robert Reed right out of the script for the last couple of episodes of season 5 because he was being a douche so I could see why this might happen. Never came to pass because the 6 kids pulled a solidarity stunt with Schwartz for pay raises and that ended the show.

IBB, Cail can defend himself, but I just want to point out that your three bullet points are OT, non sequitur, irrelevant straw men. — Escoffier

IBB seems like a decent enough guy most of the time, but he’s a huge White Knight, so we do this dance with him every once in a while. He makes an outrageous blue-pill-loaded claim about something; we shoot him down with a promptness; he says we’re awesome but we misunderstood him; he shifts the goalposts a bit while continuing to push his original point; we shoot him down some more. This continues until he declares the argument over and himself the winner, at which point he’s usually shifted the goalposts so far he’s spiking the ball in his own endzone.

And of course he didn’t really care anyway; as in this case, he just wrote all that emotional stuff and called me names to…educate us, I guess. And that entire comment about how I shouldn’t marry a younger woman because of God’s rules, when there are no such rules, was just typing practice, I guess. He totally doesn’t care at all whether I marry and deflower a 19-year-old girl, see? You can tell how much he doesn’t care by how hard he argued against it.

IBB, the biblical rules you mentioned are much easier to follow if you marry a young woman instead of an older one. An older one can also get disfigured in an accident, but she’ll become old in shorter time and there’s a higher chance of infertility.

Hey, Lord; did you read that? IBB says you can’t enforce “the rules” (NFI). It’s not clear to us whether he’s saying that you’re unable or not allowed to enforce them, but either way, if you didn’t catch it when he first posted it, I figured I’d bring it to your attention on the assumption that you’d definitely have something to say about it. This is, after all, the guy who you straight on what is and what is not “infernal perversion” in marriage.

It remains to be seen (wont happen until our deaths) if God holds each of us accountable for not following His law.

IBB’s Bible must be missing most of the New Testament (of course it begs the question of why a guy who thinks he can set God straight needs a Bible). Anyone game for taking up a collection to buy him a new one, with Revelation bookmarked?

The lack of research on effects of paternal involvement can not be an oversight. For the crucial aspect of adolescent sexual behavior, the neglect of paternal involvement HAS to be due to policies enforcing a deliberate downplaying of a father’s role.http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/130/5/e1313.full.pdf
“To date, most parent-based research has neglected the role of fathers in shaping adolescent sexual behavior and has focused on mothers.”
“Overall, we found a lack of research on the influence of fathers despite the well-documented importance of familial variables in shaping adolescent behavior.”
“In general, studies suggest that more positive relationship qualities, including higher emotional quality of the father-adolescent relationship and greater paternal involvement, were associated
with decreased adolescent sexual risk behavior;”
“Although many studies relied on cross-sectional designs, greater emotional quality of
the father-adolescent relationship, paternal communication about sex, and paternal disapproval of adolescent sexual behavior were associated with reduced or delayed adolescent sexual behavior independently of the equivalent maternal variable.”
Translation: If we look at fathers’ influence, then we find fathers can have a big influence especially in decreasing adolescent sex, and the fathers’ influence can reduce the mothers’ influence if the mothers want a different outcome than the fathers.
Explanation: Everybody knows that for the past few generations we observe increased adolescent sexuality as being correlated with deliberately reduced paternal influence. So if we stick our head in the sand and ignore fathers, then maybe we can claim ignorance that the social policies’ desired empowerment of more female influence came at the expense of paternal influence and has resulted in the expected outcome and therefore the DESIRED outcome: increased licentiousness.

He totally doesn’t care at all whether I marry and deflower a 19-year-old girl, see? You can tell how much he doesn’t care by how hard he argued against it.

In IBB’s view, deflowering a 19 year old woman is perverse if done by her husband. This must instead be done by the men the 19 year old woman “finds herself” under until she is in her mid to late 20s and therefore ready to marry.

You have either older daughters you’re afraid are headed for spinsterhood, or younger ones you think are too sweet and innocent and good for a old codger like me because I’d die and leave you with a daughter and grandkids to support (and because I’m an infernal pervert).

I think he also married a woman who’s his age (in her 30s at the time), so it could be envy too. Sour grapes or whatnot.

In IBB’s view, deflowering a 19 year old woman is perverse if done by her husband.

I think you should be a little more specific. It’s perverse because she doesn’t have a college degree, and it’s more perverse as the age of the husband increases. It’s especially perverse if her husband, regardless of age, doesn’t allow her to get a college degree.

Now please tell me which of God’s rules I would be violating by marrying a girl 20 years younger than myself.

There are, of course, no such rules in the Bible. A little over a year ago, one of my young lady commenters, a sweet and chaste girl, met a gentlemen commenter on my site who is 20 years her senior. They were married – in a church, I might add – recently and are delighted with one another. \

Ibb has a daughter(s) and it would be a psychological kiss of death for him to change frame on this one. I have posted before when the essence of who you are comes into question the truth can be unbearable. There is no second chance and at the time sending pumpkin to school to ride the carousel and get a degree truly was the best a father could do for his daughter. To find out later through the red pill that the great decision was based on a lie (well, fill in the trauma because we are not talking about a stock investment we are talking a child your own daughter) He has been looking for a redpill ideal whiteknight the whole time he has been in the manosphere. (I like manosphere it sounds cool to me)
Trust in that he knows everything being said here, and add to that you can’t roll back the clock. he would sell his soul to take what he has now and open the bedroom door and see his daughter 12 years old.

“The general assumption in the sphere I think is that the elites understand the ramifications of the policies, and have already decided to ride the ship all the way down. In my view it is much more interesting; they are wedded to the policies all right, but they are just now getting the inkling that we are taking on a bit of water. What we’ve seen so far is a combination of bluster, complaints that weak men are ruining feminism, and brief emotional breakdowns. The real show has yet to begin.”

The real show is about to begin, because the problems on the ground are worse than the stats show, and are just starting to be felt. What we have going on now is the teaser before the opening credits, but the opening credits are coming and the title isn’t one they’re going to like.

I think you should be a little more specific. It’s perverse because she doesn’t have a college degree, and it’s more perverse as the age of the husband increases. It’s especially perverse if her husband, regardless of age, doesn’t allow her to get a college degree.

(All in good fun.)

Yes I suppose, good fun. Lets have some more fun.

What I love about the manosphere and eating the red pill is what you all love, reality. Dalrock’s blog is great because everything is so real. We have no time for feminist bullsh-t, we live in the world of reality. That is very liberating because in the world of reality, you don’t have to worry about walking on egg shells and dancing around absolute truths. And when reality hits you like a ton of bricks upside the face, it stings. And somethings that sting can really hurt your pride (something too many people refuse to swallow.) That is when the shit really hits the fan….

…as is the case here with too many of you. As Marcelous Wallce said, that’s pride f-cking with you.

Here is a little red pill reality Marissa. The May-December marriages, although legal, there is not much there beyond the physical and the money. For the older one (him or her, doesn’t make any difference really) all they are thinking is the sex. This young stud makes her old vagina/anus tingle. This young ripe girl makes his old wrinkly cock stiff. For the young one, he or she is thinking about the money and the resources. They are digging for gold and security.

That is it, a marriage based on sex and money. This is NOT the recipe for a healthy, long term, functional, loving, Godly, Christian marriage. This is a recipe for anger, jealousy, frustration, bitterness, contempt, hatred, and eventual divorce or death.

What are you missing with a sex and money based May-December marriage is the following:

* The two of you have nothing to talk about, nothing. You are both at completely different stages in life, a gap so large that there will be huge communication issues
* You will have a very hard time developing lasting friendships with other married couples. You LOSE that
* If the older one already has kids that are just a couple/few years younger than the new spouse (or God help you, older than your spouse) there is virtually ZERO CHANCE those kids will ever want to have anything to do with their new stepmom/stepdad. In fact, it is entirely likely that the kids will hate their father or mother for what they have done for a variety of reasons (many of them selfish as they see the stepmom/stepdad as stealing their inheritance.) And don’t any of you NAKART me on this.
* The older one will struggle to have any respect for the young one
* The young one will struggle even harder to stay faithful to the old one
…and here’s the kicker…
* If she was the young one and they have kids together, daddy is most likely going to be dead long before these kids are ready to let him go. Yes dad, you will have stolen the future from your young children by denying them a dad in their life for the number of years that they could have had if their mom and dad were about the same age. 58 year old men making babies with 24 year old wives means 24 year old children burying their selfish, sexually perrverted, father.

That’s reality Marissa. Its hard I know, but swallowing the red pill is hard to do.

My wife and I are very close in age the way SSM and HHG are, just a few years apart. That is right and good. We raise our children together. They grow up, get their own lives, move out of the house, and we have (hopefully) a long retirement together to start the final journey in our marriage before the end of our mortal lives. That is right, and good, and just, and Christian.

For the older gents here at Dalrock’s who never married and want kids with a sweet young thing, I’m sorry you all missed your windows. If you get married to a young girl, I certainly wish you the best, wish you all the happiness in the world. I hope you all get what you are looking for, that is the best I can do. But odds are that your marriage will be a tough one, a lot harder than it has to be….

I know you’ve been jumped on a lot recently. I’d like to ask you to clarify some things, for me, as a non-Christian who is trying to approach these rules with an open mind.

If she was the young one and they have kids together, daddy is most likely going to be dead long before these kids are ready to let him go. Yes dad, you will have stolen the future from your young children by denying them a dad in their life for the number of years that they could have had if their mom and dad were about the same age. 58 year old men making babies with 24 year old wives means 24 year old children burying their selfish, sexually perrverted, father.

My understanding is that Cail is in his early 40s and is dating 19-year old women. I don’t see the problem with this. If he has a kid at 45, and the woman is, say, 22 or so, then he has 20 years before he is pensioned off. That’s enough time to raise a kid and provide for him. Maybe the kid would have to get a job in his junior year of uni, or whatever, so dad could take it easy. Not a huge issue.

Is this something that is prohibited in the texts of the Christian church, or is it something you personally find distasteful? You seem to be throwing around a lot of talk about “sin” and “perversion”. I don’t know that there’s much foundation for this.

I’m a Mormon (at least by birth lol). I dig around in my genealogy records once in a while (we are into ancestor worship, ya know). Most of the women in my family were married by 20-21. Many of the women in my tree were married at 17 and 18, in fact. Of course, those were the days when an 18-year old woman, raised in a healthy home, could run a house, help her husband skin a deer on the weekend, and perforate your cranium at 500 metres if she absolutely had to. People (both men and women) are much softer and more ridiculous these days, but even so, at 19 there are a fair number of girls who know enough to be serious about life.

It’s ever more difficult for me to believe IBB is a man, but prescinding that thought, I want to say something concerning “The two of you have nothing to talk about, nothing.”

I always have plenty to talk about. Age is the least limiting factor. I can, and do, have marvelous conversations with 6 yr old girls, 16 yr old girls, and 63 yr old women, all the time. The topics may vary, but why would any one, man or woman, be stuck endlessly remembering, or trying to remember, things that happened years ago? “Remember what you were doing when you heard Kennedy was shot?” Yes, I do, but after talking about it once then you have nothing about THAT to talk about, nothing. Make new memories instead.

Thanks. Its okay, I’m a big boy. If I couldn’t take being jumped on… I wouldn’t post. Life is too short to get worked up over that.

My understanding is that Cail is in his early 40s and is dating 19-year old women. I don’t see the problem with this. If he has a kid at 45, and the woman is, say, 22 or so, then he has 20 years before he is pensioned off. That’s enough time to raise a kid and provide for him. Maybe the kid would have to get a job in his junior year of uni, or whatever, so dad could take it easy. Not a huge issue.

I like Cail. I love reading his blog. I left him a comment today. I just want him to be happy. I didn’t know before today that he wasn’t married.

I don’t know anything about any of these kids he might be dating but to me (and should be to him) these are just kids. A 19 year old girl is a kid to a 40-something man. They are completely worlds apart in lifestyle. And that canyon distance will be very difficult to bridge in this lifetime. That much I know. And I don’t want anyone here to struggle. I want them all to be happy.

Is this something that is prohibited in the texts of the Christian church, or is it something you personally find distasteful? You seem to be throwing around a lot of talk about “sin” and “perversion”. I don’t know that there’s much foundation for this.

Not sin, no. We are talking marriage so no sin here. Perversion? Yeah. Yeah probably. Society largely frowns on this and with pretty good reason. All a man more than double the age of his wife is thinking, is the sex. Anyone who has been married a while (I raise my hand) will tell you the sex is very important, vital, but (even with that little blue pill Viagra) not enough to found a marriage on, it just isn’t….. there are far too many forces in the world in which we all live that are stacked against your marriage lasting a lifetime. A marriage where your sex drive towards her fertility being the ONLY REASON for the marriage, that is a dicey proposition my friend.

A couple of things occurred to me about the remarriage rates of Dlarock’s chart.

First, it clearly shows the truth of Rollo’s sexual market value chart. Men 45+ are several orders of magnitude more attractive for marriage at 45+ than women are in that age bracket. Most divorced men in that category got remarried in the 1960s. Most women did not.

Second, the chart shows that there is indeed a marriage strike going on. It is not women delaying marriage and young men “not getting the memo” to be suitable mates.

Men at 45 could easily get married before to obviously younger women. and most men that are in their forties and divorced are marriage material. They were attractive at one point in their life to draw a spouse and they can do it again even if it is a 30ish women looking for a provider, these men are at the prime for signaling that too. *Mr. Jenny Erickson I’m looking at you *. And frankly, it would be fairly easy for these men to marry a woman that is hitting her early 30s, feeling a little desperate (the churches are full of these types of women) their relative market value is about the same, he could still have a kid or two in addition to the ones from the prior marriage, still have a wife significantly younger than his still married cohorts. And the men in the 45+ age bracket were in their 20s during the 90s, so they are not in the cohort of men “peter paning.”

In fact I know of several men that have done just that. Not alpha men, but successful enough, established, have a couple kids, middle class, fairly boring types and they remarry without much difficulty to women a good 15 years their junior.

These man are ideally situated to marry a woman getting off the merry go round that still has a few years in her.

And they are not doing it.

This is proof that a strike is going on, it isn’t just men getting turned down, men are choosing not to do it.

And what signals does this send to the men that haven’t been married? The message is don’t do it.

“* The two of you have nothing to talk about, nothing. You are both at completely different stages in life, a gap so large that there will be huge communication issues
* You will have a very hard time developing lasting friendships with other married couples. You LOSE that
* If the older one already has kids that are just a couple/few years younger than the new spouse (or God help you, older than your spouse) there is virtually ZERO CHANCE those kids will ever want to have anything to do with their new stepmom/stepdad. In fact, it is entirely likely that the kids will hate their father or mother for what they have done for a variety of reasons (many of them selfish as they see the stepmom/stepdad as stealing their inheritance.) And don’t any of you NAKART me on this.
* The older one will struggle to have any respect for the young one
* The young one will struggle even harder to stay faithful to the old one
…and here’s the kicker…
* If she was the young one and they have kids together, daddy is most likely going to be dead long before these kids are ready to let him go”

Where to start with this . . . I swear these are the kinds of things women come up with to try and get me to date their age.

1) Most men and women have “nothing” to talk about after a couple years anyway. And if it is true that you have nothing to talk about because you are at “different stages” then I feel sorry for your children since they are at different stages and can’t connect with you. Having talked with women of all age brackets, I do not find the conversations with older women any more stimulating than conversations with younger ones. Women are women, except in the rare occassion when they are old, some of them actually might become wise.

2) The loss of friendships with other married couples . . . please. Hanging around a bunch of men that have that desperate look of despair on their face and their frumpy wives talking about football, or television, or politics . . . its boring anyway. Its no great loss.

3) I call bullshit on this too. First, if they are that close in age, then they have all sorts of things to connect and talk about because they’re at the same “stage in life” Honestly, if the younger spouse doesn’t act like their mom, there isn’t going to be a problem. Again, seen this.

4) Respect. . .Most women don’t crave this. They want to be loved

5) This one I will grant, but really the best way to insure your wife is faithful is to marry an old fat woman. I don’t care how close in age you are, if your wife is slim and attractive the opportunities for her to cheat are there all the time.

6) Children throughout history have had to deal with the loss of a parent before their ready. Its sad, it isn’t a big kicker.

As for the sex/gold digger thing. I am reminded of Larry Niven remarking that if it wasn’t for sex and children, there wasn’t anything to keep the sexes involved with each other. I think this isn’t clear either, since I have known plenty of May December relationships that weren’t headed toward marriage and they seemed happy while it lasted, they were getting something out of it.

There is a reason men breed dogs to be playful, we like the playful qualities and it is the same for women. Younger women are more playful, they are more fun. So it is more than just the sex.

Which woman is more likely to go on the spur of the moment on an adventure, to jump out of a plane? The young one or the old one?

“You will have a very hard time developing lasting friendships with other married couples. You LOSE that”

When you get divorced your going to lose that anyway, if you have been divorced, its already gone before you marry that young thing.

Divorce is contagious and people will keep you away. Plus, being single or divorced at some point becomes a threat to their marriage simply because you represent an opportunity to cheat (as if the married people are somehow less likely to do that to you . . .)

I want to just add that not all 40 plus women are the same. There are some very high quality, chaste, slim, fit women over that age. But they are probably one on twenty. Those women often got caught in the “career thing” or just never “clicked”.

And these are the women who eventually find love: us old guys are fussy.

I don’t know anything about any of these kids he might be dating but to me (and should be to him) these are just kids. A 19 year old girl is a kid to a 40-something man. They are completely worlds apart in lifestyle. And that canyon distance will be very difficult to bridge in this lifetime. That much I know. And I don’t want anyone here to struggle. I want them all to be happy.

I dated a 19-year old, sporadically, until she was nearly 21; and I’m not that much younger than Cail. I definitely agree with the fact that there are communication difficulties.

I also see what you mean by “pervert” now, too. If I can secularize it a bit, I’ll analogize it to those white chicks who “only date Arabs” that I occasionally run across.

Of course there are white women who might meet an Arab dude and fall in love with him. Those aren’t the people I’m talking about. I mean the fetishists, who refuse to date anyone but a certain type. Often, in the case I specifically refer to, the white woman wants to date an Arab guy because she sees him as a thing, a pet, an animal, less than human, etc. She likes the idea of looking down on someone. These types basically can not have anything but a degrading master-slave relationship, because their lack of self control is only masked by the theatre of controlling someone else. (I’m actually related to one of these idiots, which is why I’m familiar).

People like this are fucked in the head, and sadly not as uncommon as they ought to be; and the minute I identify one I get them as far away from me as possible.

But, a general preference for youth isn’t usually a fetish of this type. It could be. “I will not date anyone older than 19,” said by a 40-year old, would make me cock an eyebrow. More likely, it’s just a case of two people meeting, getting to know one another, and settling into a thang. I would never judge a man who loves a woman (and a 19-year old, objectively, is a woman, not a kid).

To summarize MarcusD’s and other May-December links:
1) There are six or seven times as many May-December unions in which the man is older.
2) It’s not gold digging. When one or both individuals are wealthy, May-December unions (in US and Canada) are much less likely than when both partners are low income. When the woman is older, she is more likely to be poorer than in the average population.
3) It is unlikely to be the first union for either partner, especially if the woman is older.

My understanding is that Cail is in his early 40s and is dating 19-year old women. I don’t see the problem with this.

To clear things up a bit: yes, I’m in my early 40s, but I haven’t been dating anyone lately, 19 or 39. I’ve been working on some personal goals and trying to discern whether I’m really meant to be married at all, before I waste anyone’s time on “dating.” Also, I’m not wealthy enough for anyone to marry me for gold, so IBB doesn’t have to worry about that; it’ll have to be for my charm.

But I’m a handsome dude and a snappy dresser, so sometimes a girl will bat her eyelashes at me, and sometimes the girl will still have some of the rosiness of youth in her cheeks or mention that she goes to the local college. In the past, I would have done nothing to encourage her, thinking she was too young. I would have assumed a girl so young could want nothing to do with me — I must have misread the eyelashes — so I’d just get rejected anyway, and if not there’s the hassle I’d get from people like IBB in real life for robbing the cradle. I had convinced myself I had to shoot for someone nearer my own age, at least 30 or so.

I’m just saying I’m not going to do that anymore. Assuming I determine marriage is for me, I’m not going to keep the young ones at arm’s length anymore, and if I go actively hunting for a wife, I’m going to set the bottom of my target age range at about 20. That doesn’t mean my ideal would be a 20-year-old, but I’m not going to rule her out. And if I end up with a 20-year-old and people think that’s scandalous, tough.

Thing is, it’s not like traditional, marriage-minded, submissive, attractive 20-year-old girls are a dime a dozen either. They’re rare too, just not as rare as the same thing at 30-35, after a decade or more of developing personality and character disorders via carousel-riding and/or trying to fill the masculine role in their own lives. If one in a thousand single women 30-35 are capable of biblical marriage, maybe 1-in-100 are at 20-25, so I’m just trying to improve the odds a bit.

Where to start with this . . . I swear these are the kinds of things women come up with to try and get me to date their age.

I’m coming around to the idea, advanced in a previous thread, that IBB is a woman. His arguments remind me of the way women react now that I’m forthright with them. I had a conversation with one that went like this:

Her: I feel bad for Bob and Sue; they really got the shaft on that deal with Chuck.
Me: Sounds to me like it was their fault.
Her: Maybe, but Chuck shouldn’t have taken advantage….
Me: I think he was in the right.
Her: Yeah, but I still feel bad for them…
Me: I wouldn’t waste my time, they got what they deserved.
Her: Yeah, they’re such whiners, I can’t stand them.

I’m serious, that’s how it went. The first time it happened, I just looked at her, astounded, thinking, “Are you freakin’ kidding me? Don’t you remember the words that just came out of your mouth 30 seconds ago?” No, she didn’t, because her emotions no longer agreed with those words. It was one of those moments of clarity, when I realized once again that the red-pill/game guys weren’t lying — weren’t even exaggerating.

If you try to persuade a woman with logic or begging, she’ll run you in circles all day. But if you just calmly say “you’re wrong” to a woman who sees you as alpha, she’ll shift positions so fast you’ll want to laugh. IBB’s strings of comments kinda remind me of that.

That’s sweet of you, though I don’t know why you would. But I have a small suggestion: don’t call people you like infernal perverts. I don’t take things online personally — you’re all just bytes inside a giant computer anyway — but many people do. You’ll probably get more traction without the name-calling.

As for whether marrying a girl half your age is “perversion” because society says so: Our society also frowns on having more than two children, or saying that homosexuality is wrong, or a girl choosing to marry rather than go to college. Thanks, but I’ll pass on letting “society” tell me what’s perverse.

Cail,
I still do that with my ex-wife. She accused me of all sorts of heinous things during the divorce to gain an upper hand in custody. I can still get her to do 180s on topics when it matters (related to the children). She bought into the feminist lie and blew up the family for the fading cheers of her girlfriends (in truly dysfunctional marriages), but constantly tries to get me to validate her thoughts/feelings.

Imagine telling everyone how horrible someone is, but you still look to them for validation.

As much as I dislike diverting attention away from the latest example of concern-trolling, I wonder if we might return to the OP for a moment.

Dalrock, in the past when I’ve looked at crime statistics including incarceration rates it has been in the context of violent crime, typically armed robbery and/or murder. So I know more or less how to read the NCIS. But I’m at a loss on the subject of nonviolent crime.

Question: How many men are in prison due to Bradley ’86 as amended in the 1990’s welfare reform? Do we even know? Do we have a breakdown by income level, or by race?

I’m going to pull some numbers out of thin air:
Suppose that out of every 1,000 men imprisoned as Deadbeat Dads, 800 of them were men who had never earned even close to the median income. Let’s say that 80% had 3-year averaged income of $30,000 or less, and that the majority of those were closer to $20,000. It is easy to imagine how this could happen – between imputed income in a divorce proceeding or as a result of being named in paternity (legally required in most states now, I believe), and any of several other things from loss of job to serious accident to health issue, it would be all too easy for a man in the lower quartile earning bracket to fall behind on child support obligations far enough that he could never catch up. Then comes the loss of driver’s license, all professional / skilled labor licensing, and thus any chance of any job at more than minimum wage. At this point it is all but inevitable he’ll be incarcerated, and since the financial obligation continues to pile up he’s now eligible for perpetual-revolving-door status, in and out of prison.

If the data truly are out there, and it can be shown that black men are more often imprisoned as “Deadbeat Dads”, then there’s one of the huge blind spots of the Urban Institute.Never mind the drug war, what if anti-family court is part of the ongoing crisis of black families in America? What then, I wonder?

[D: Good question. Dr. Helen has written some on the topic of incarceration for child support, so she might know. This paper might also be relevant.

Turning to the Missouri sperm donor case, I got to thinking about the whole notion of a sperm bank. Without bothering to search, they seem to be an invention of the 1960’s. I recall reading about the concept in high school biology, and the original justification was to provide infertile married couples with the chance for the wife to bear a child into the marriage. A couple of the matriarchs of my family were absolutely shocked when sperm banks started serving, or perhaps servicing, unmarried women. That was immoral, in their eyes. Looking backwards it should be no surprise that in some progressive, coastal venues men began providing turkey-baster filling for lesbian couples in the 1990’s – it’s not that big a step from “woman goes to specialized OB/GYN for syringe of semen” to “woman and her partner get together with male friend and turkey baster”. Bonus points in some quarters if the man is gay…but I digress.

Let’s look at this abstractly. Man and woman marry, find that she isn’t getting pregnant, determine from medical testing that his swimmers aren’t winning the race. So they pay for another man to impregnate her, although via a medical go-between. The original sperm banks screened donors and pretty much limited them to med students and other college men.

This is “Alpha Sperm, Beta Provisioning”, and nothing less. Putting a tech or a doctor in the middle wearing gloves and a lab coat, and injecting semen with a syringe rather than the usual method doesn’t change that. Sperm banks are therefore a clinical version of AF-BB, and as such clearly serve the Female Imperative in the same manner as a married woman having an affair while she’s ovulating – except that the latter is still sorta frowned upon, while the former has been a part of US culture for 40-50 or more years. I wonder what the time line is – did sperm banks show up about the same time as hormonal contraception, for example?

Now turning back to the sucker in Missouri: what’s his real crime? Sperm donor without a license, I guess, his lesbian friends failed to use the medical go-between, and his ignorance left him liable. But in terms of the Female Imperative, perhaps he wasn’t alpha enough – they could find him – or perhaps he was alpha enough for breeding purposes (paging Mary Daly…) but beta enough for provisioning as well? I have to ponder this one more.

But the sperm bank? That’s obvious now that I wear the glasses, but it’s still kind of startling to realize that it just hit me last night that the whole idea of a sperm bank is a clear, medicalized, fully legal example of the Female Imperative of AF-BB and it’s been right out in the open for at least two generations. And it is totally normal. In fact it was apparently not all that controversial even at the start. Certainly today we all accept it because teh wimmenz deserve their own bay-bee if they want one (or more), no matter the cost to anyone else.

Another case of the Female Imperative hiding in plain sight. Someone alert Rollo.

Thanks for the links to papers, Dalrock. I wonder about the income distribution of men incarcerated as Deadbeat Dads because if my hunch is correct, probability of jail for that offense is inversely related to income. So even though MC and UMC men are at risk of divorce theft, they are still not at as great a risk of going to jail. Therefore they, and the women of their class, are going to be less prone to see Deadbeat Dad Debtor’s prison as unjust, or a threat to their family structure. Hence the lack of objections to it among the chattering classes – as the late Pauline Kael might put it, “No one I know has ever gone to jail over child support, so I can’t imagine it happening to any man who didn’t deserve it”.

And since think tanks draw their Deep Thinkers from the UMC, there’s little reason for said Thinkers to even consider this aspect of the issue. (Which suggests they ain’t so Deep in their Thoughts, and hey, paging Jack Handy, but now I really digress.)

Anonymous Reader- “If the data truly are out there, and it can be shown that black men are more often imprisoned as “Deadbeat Dads”, then there’s one of the huge blind spots of the Urban Institute.Never mind the drug war, what if anti-family court is part of the ongoing crisis of black families in America?”

That’s something I’ve never considered. It fits in with my theory that the welfare state/great society was intended to a new improved replacement for Jim Crow more than a redress the past grievances.

AR-“Let’s look at this abstractly. Man and woman marry, find that she isn’t getting pregnant, determine from medical testing that his swimmers aren’t winning the race…. This is “Alpha Sperm, Beta Provisioning”, and nothing less.”

Eh, I would argue that while this is true, there’s a big difference from the man’s perspective if he can’t get his wife pregnant and decides to go the donor route vs. he never got the opportunity because she’s already had her kids with someone else and doesn’t want any more. The first is still AFBB, but I would imagine it’s not really comparable to the second as far as the BB is concerned.

@IBB >>The May-December marriages, although legal, there is not much there beyond the physical and the money.

As is too often the case, IBB has no idea what he is talking about. My guess is he has no personal acquaintances who are May December marriages. So, using advanced navel contemplation, he theorizes what it must be like.

This hatred of old with young is a direct product of militant feminism, and too many men who unscrew the tops of their heads and let the femis pour in fecal material.

Yes, there certainly are old men and young women who follow his scenario. But, he really allows for no exceptions, except with sarcasm.

The problem is we all, from whatever culture, tend to be products of our culture, and are usually unable to comprehend any different way of doing things. The USA today is an extreme example of nationalism, as Germany was in the early 20th Century.

The culture in the USA basically hates men, but especially hates old men. Men in the US get no respect, but old men are actually hated, even by other men and even by other old men. All from feminism. You see, old men tend to be more powerful, partly because of a lifetime of accumulating assets, so they must be destroyed to destroy the patriarchy. And, willing men help, men such as IBB.

In other cultures, my personal expertise of course is Mexico, old men are not hated (unless an individual deserves to be hated, of course, but not just because he is old as it is in the USA.)

There are women who like intelligent men, sophisticated men. Men who will treat them well, as I have written in the past. IBB says having something to talk about is crucial, but he is really hung up on the physical. In other words, sex. In Mexico, a small percentage of young women think mostly about how a man will treat them, not so much about how HAWT he is. These are very often the ones who PREFER older men.

IBB says a May December couple would have nothing to talk about. In fact, one reason SOME young women like older men, often intellectual men, is that exact reason; to have something to talk about. An older man who is well read; is intellectual; has traveled; is aware of things other then the latest naked singer or Obamacare. I remember several years ago having a debate with two women, one around 18; the other one over 50. As to which novel was better, Jane Eyre by Charlotte Bronte, or Wuthering Heights by her sister Emily. The 18 year old, is now in her late 20’s, and very happily married with a baby, to a man well into his Forties. He is bilingual and can talk of other places and things, and he can support her and the kids. She does not whine he does not talk to her; that is a typical AW stunt.

I don’t think IBB is a woman. But, he does think like a woman. No matter what anyone says, it goes in this ear and out the other ear with no effect on him. Nothing anyone says can change his mind. That is definitely a feminist trait.

@Boxer
>> (we are into ancestor worship, ya know)
LDS do not worship their ancestors. If they can identify them with certainty, they seal them, which is not exactly like baptizing them. So, you don’t like your birth church, I can very easily understand that. But, please don’t spread false information.

The culture in the USA basically hates men, but especially hates old men. Men in the US get no respect, but old men are actually hated, even by other men and even by other old men. All from feminism. You see, old men tend to be more powerful, partly because of a lifetime of accumulating assets, so they must be destroyed to destroy the patriarchy. And, willing men help, men such as IBB….

…IBB says a May December couple would have nothing to talk about. In fact, one reason SOME young women like older men, often intellectual men, is that exact reason; to have something to talk about. An older man who is well read; is intellectual; has traveled; is aware of things other then the latest naked singer or Obamacare. I remember several years ago having a debate with two women, one around 18; the other one over 50.

No ’71. This has absolutely nothing to do with the USA (or myself) hating old men. You are projecting.

I’m not a feminist. And Feminsts do generally hate men. But you are missing some important points sir about feminism, namely that feminists believe that women always know what they want (they don’t particularly the younger ones that Cail is chasing) AND that women have the power to change their mind (and change the lives of others) if they screw up and do something that they shouldn’t have done (like marry some old fart for all the wrong reasons.)

In the above clip, a feminist would have NO PROBLEM with her hooking up with this guy because that is what she thinks she wants…. at the time. And that is fine with feminism because she thinks she is empowered. She thinks she knows what she wants.

But feminism will also say that she can back out at any time (even after marrying him) when she realizes that he can’t possibly give her everything she feels she is entitled. So people like myself (who know that women are all over the place in what they want, one day to the next) are going to frown on these relationships.

I read through one of the Hatcher papers about deadbroke fathers and was motivated to seek stats. The best estimates are that over half (~55%) of all male inmates have minor children, and fully half of those imprisoned fathers have ongoing child support court actions (25-30% of all male inmates).https://peerta.acf.hhs.gov/uploadedFiles/BuildingDebt.pdfhttp://www.irp.wisc.edu/research/childsup/cspolicy/pdfs/2011-12/Task7b-2011-12-Report.pdf
Most of those are NOT imprisoned, nor are their terms lengthened, strictly because of child support issues, although most have arrearages etc officially taken into account as evidence of being bad men e.g. for parole. But I’d like to share an anecdote, from working as a counselor for a teen in New Orleans in the 1970s. His father WAS in prison because of child support issues, and according the father, about age 40, he was listed falsely as the father of more than a dozen other children, mostly from women he never met much less slept with, with many of the impregnations supposedly occurring during the times of his frequent incarcerations. The women were happy to be able to take advantage of a man they never met, listing him as father in order to receive additional state monies, and the state was happy about it since his name was already in the system and they didn’t have to go through the expense and hassle of locking yet another man up. Win-win for almost everybody, including the actual fathers still with the women, except for the cuckold scapegoat.

IBB, most cultures married women off while they were young virgins and didn’t allow them to screw up civilization with their nebulous “wants” and easily changed minds. Your whining about May-December romances sounds like it came straight out of a women’s studies textbook. The blog owner has soundly dismantled such envy-based arguments.

@IBB >>No ’71. This has absolutely nothing to do with the USA (or myself) hating old men. You are projecting.

No, I am not. This is one advantage of living in another culture. You learn things about your native society that people living in it do not notice. Just as families which eat a lot of cabbage don’t notice the smell of cabbage in their home.

When you come back into the States, the odor of hatred for men is overwhelming, but especially the hatred for old men.

And, only a person who hates old men would call a man a pervert for desiring a young woman in his life.

You continue to do what you normally do. Simply make stuff up as you go.

Let me add that the biggest sign of hatred for old men is the use of the phrase old fart, which you just used. I told my wife’s best friend here, that in the US they call old men old farts. She looked like she wanted to throw up. You are disgusting.

@Marissa:“most cultures married women off while they were young virgins”
Spot-on
Yet, we hear this never-ending propaganda that a woman’s virginity doesn’t matter. Is it maybe, perhaps, on a long shot, quite possible that the reason virginity was such a “big deal” (witness one Jenny Erikson) is that it really does matter, and matter a whole lot?

In all seriousness, I wasn’t even aware that Women’s Studies (I’m not even sure I know what that is?) even HAS text books. I’m not interested in cultures outside my own (as I can’t control what they do) but I am painfully aware of cultures in the Southwest (Northern Arizona and Southern Utah, specifically) where young virgin girls are polygamously married off to old wrinkly farts and it doesn’t even matter what the girls want or don’t want.

My arguments aren’t based in envy. They are based on what is in the best interest of civilization and Christian marriage. There is absolutely nothing wholesome about a 23 year old girl marrying a 53 year old man. I would love the blog owner to start a discussion to compare the data on the percentage of successful marriages (successful = don’t wind up in divorce) where there is a spousal age gap of 20 years or more (and compare that to marriages where the spouses are no more than 5 years apart) because I’m of the opinion that in the unfortunate world of Mariage 2.0, those May-December marriages aren’t as likely to succeed regardless of her ‘N’.

My wife’s great-grandmother marrried at age 14. In those days, to be an unwed mother was such a social disaster that the whole family would be shunned, not just the girl herself. Fathers of daughters would not let them marry a man who had an unwed mother sister.

So, when the family could tell a girl had what we call hot pants, she got married, long before she was knocked up. There was often no choice in the matter. Being an unwed mother was simply not an option.

We can mock them from a historical point. But, looking at the mess we have in the US, they look pretty smart.

Just so you know, many economists predict that Mexico will supplant the US as the economic power house of the Western Hemisphere, within maybe 20 years. While I have no informed opinion, I can see the seeds of that economic expansion in Mexico, but also the impending collapse of the USA.

I was going to type something very red pill (and real) in response to your screed. I thought better of it because it appears I may have hurt your feelings. So I am going to swallow a blue pill and say something else.

IBB, I know of some cultures, like the one which pre-dated the current modern period, that didn’t allow the “wants” or “changed minds” of young women to destroy their marriages through divorce and legitimized adultery. Why retort with a feminist talking point about non-consensual marriages (they’ve been quite rare in white, Christian history)? I’m not in the least bit surprised to see that you think virginity isn’t as important as the age gap between the bridge and groom.

Why retort with a feminist talking point about non-consensual marriages (they’ve
been quite rare in white, Christian history)?

Point taken, but as SSM said yesterday, feminism is entirely a Western Civ construct created exclusively in Christianized nations. So what happens there in Utah and AZ, matters.

I’m not in the least bit surprised to see that you think virginity isn’t as important as the age gap between the bridge and groom.

I’m saying that a large age gap (large = 20+ years) might exaserbate divorce. I’m saying that even if she was N = 0. There are a number of reasons why this is the case. It will be very curious if the data shows that to be true and those believers here in older men chasing younger girls for marriage, simply REFUSE to accept that because of their pride.

I don’t have the numbers. I don’t know for sure. But I have known quite a few marriages with large age gaps. Although I have no idea what her N was, none of those marriages made it past 5 years.

IBB feminism is entirely a Western Civ construct created exclusively in Christianized nations. So what happens there in Utah and AZ, matters.

So you are somehow trying to draw a connection between feminism, and the renegade Mormon communities in northern Arizona / southern Utah – communities that the mainstream Mormons excommunicated years ago? What connection is that, please? Display your ignorance some more…

Something so rare it doesn’t at all represent the vast majority of white, Christian marriages matters? Throughout the history of Catholic Europe the Church forbade non-consensual marriage. You drag out the 0.0001% of Christian (well, Fundamentalist LDS) marriages that correspond with your emotional “ick” factor. This is why so many people find you effeminate, IBB, or a woman outright. Those are feminist tactics–exaggerate the crimes of a few evil men and extend it to the rest of them (or category of them). The standard of older, established man marrying a teenage virgin exists for a good reason. She can provide him many children (as God commanded) and he can support the family’s growth. Marriage is for undefiled sex, children, and living the special relationship between Christ and the Church. The second works best with a young woman, the third with an older man. That’s as red pill as it gets.

@ IBB In the above clip, a feminist would have NO PROBLEM with her hooking up with this guy because that is what she thinks she wants…. at the time. And that is fine with feminism because she thinks she is empowered. She thinks she knows what she wants.But feminism will also say that she can back out at any time (even after marrying him) when she realizes that he can’t possibly give her everything she feels she is entitled. So people like myself (who know that women are all over the place in what they want, one day to the next) are going to frown on these relationships.

So are you SERIOUSLY trying to say here that only younger women are clueless and fickle about their wants? That post-menopausal woman over 50, or even women over 30 are staid exemplars of maturity and stability uninfected by the FI? If so, then you hail from a planet on the opposite end of the galaxy and are new to life on Earth, because you most certainly are NOT describing the typical human female.

Marissa- “The standard of older, established man marrying a teenage virgin exists for a good reason. She can provide him many children (as God commanded) and he can support the family’s growth. Marriage is for undefiled sex, children, and living the special relationship between Christ and the Church. The second works best with a young woman, the third with an older man. That’s as red pill as it gets.”

Throughout most of western history the upper classes (aristocracy) often married off quite young women (16, 17 years old) to older established men (30+). In republican Rome the Patricians considered a 19 year woman in danger of becoming an old maid, but most men didn’t marry before age 30 when they had completed their various military obligations and had lived to tell the tale. It’s only the lower classes that marry young and contemporaneously by age. Only amongst the plebes was early marriage and age parity common.

In medieval England the serfs married after obtaining permission form the local lord, they married young. Arranged marriages were common as way political negotiation amongst the nobility and military classes. Freemen often held off marriage until completing apprenticeships and then married the younger daughters of their masters, or sometimes would marry the masters widow and inherited the business thus greater disparities.

Age disparities in marriage of 10-15years are historically quite common even if not the norm, a 20 year disparity was less common but not scandalous, a 30+ year disparity would raise eyebrows, but rich people live differently. Only in the 20th century was relative parity of ages realized what with two world wars, geographic mobility, and “enlightened attitudes.” The notion that an age disparity of 0-5 years is some sort of ideal is historically novel. Novel at least in the sense that for most of history it was never a consideration.

I would love the blog owner to start a discussion to compare the data on the percentage of successful marriages (successful = don’t wind up in divorce) where there is a spousal age gap of 20 years or more (and compare that to marriages where the spouses are no more than 5 years apart) because I’m of the opinion that in the unfortunate world of Mariage 2.0, those May-December marriages aren’t as likely to succeed regardless of her ‘N’.

Re: marvelous conversations. My backup haircutter-person-woman, who was hired by my woman barber hoping to expand into more women’s stylings, is leaning farther to the chubby side, forward side and back side, divorced a couple years now, and younger looking than her early 30s age. Her winter skin is pale and pasty and redolent of doughnuts and fried hair. Sometimes she dances a little while cutting, sluggishly but somewhat unnervingly. She often looks out the glass door longingly like a sad chained-up dog, forming tears while chewing gum, doing two whole things at once. She’d be a little cuter if she wiped all the makeup off. We haven’t talked all that much in the year I’ve known her. But from what she has said to other women I know she feels that her complete and total lack of boyfriends is due to her holding out hope for A True Man, her prince to come rescue her.

I’ve felt her out religiously (get your mind on track) and politically, but she’s been slow to warm up to an irrelevant old man who is too bizarrely simultaneously both ultra formal and ultra casual in conversation, in a suit jacket and tie and Dickies pants and work boots. But the other day we had a marvelous conversation for about twenty minutes as a cold wind rattled the door, translucent with heavy condensation. I could tell she wanted to talk, but she didn’t know how. So I helped. First we delved into how funny life is, an illustrative initial example being the difference between men and women making appointments. Men hate to make appointments, and want to just walk in and she be ready. Women like to make appointments, but want to call in after missing to make another appointment. I pitched the idea that men were being more polite by recognizing that they would be impolite and miss appointments, and it was really women customers (a necessary distinction) who demand other people conform to their whims, and she caught it and took it to the next level. She’s not as dumb as she looks after all. We were having fun with the man-woman discussion, and she brightened up and began to share some things about her life. And that is all it took.

A little man-woman stuff confessional to a Father who made her giggle instead of cry, and it clicked. I saw it happen in an instant: she saw me as Man and herself as Girl, she grooming me, we alone together, and she caught her breath as I pretended to make eye contact (without my glasses) and smirked. The usual mental braiding stuff; I knew she knew I knew she knew I knew. My ball; I punted. I told her of a nice young man at church, a prince of a man, that I would try to send her way, since she’s got such a nice touch and all. Her nice touch was lingering far too long, so I impolitely shrugged off her and the leopard poncho thing, and quickly exited, pausing at the door to turn and growl ambiguously “Maybe next time.” while affixing my cowboy hat. She was looking at me longingly with sad eyes.

“Men at 45 could easily get married before to obviously younger women. and most men that are in their forties and divorced are marriage material.”

I think the levels of child care payments and the asset stripping of husbands precludes ordinary men from remarrying in that age bracket.

The women from those divorces don’t need to remarry, they have the financial security from the first marriage and are pretty much playing the field.

I have a divorced friend who is dating an older divorced woman who is asset rich from her first marriage, she bought him a car and is basically his sugar mamma. That’s just one example but I personally know plenty of others.

In the past these men would have remarried to younger women but now they don’t have to, they’ve got mature promiscuous financially independent women and no strings attached sex.

From my observations (could be completely wrong) if anything it’s the older women holding these marriageable men back from younger women.

I have a divorced friend who is dating an older divorced woman who is asset rich from her first marriage, she bought him a car and is basically his sugar mamma. That’s just one example but I personally know plenty of others.

Last year, over on the Roosh V forum, someone brought this up. It’s now not unheard of for young men, just starting out, to keep a wealthy woman on the back burner for financial reasons, while banging hotties casually in his age range. There is a low risk of the woman bumping into any of the playas associates, because she is a decade or more older.

Mistake #5: “Forget to swoon a little” because… wait for it… “Clicking with someone for the first time, with all the shiny newness and magical sparklies that come from not knowing about all the skeletons in his closet. … It could end up being a fling or the real thing, but it doesn’t matter because just for a moment, there are worlds of possibilities for the two of you.”

Yes, it’s the “romance” of ‘GINA TINGLE by a mile! (Sorry, Leif, you got dogged by restless loins… nothing personal, literally.) She even adds, on the preceding point to not “Feel guilty for not being interested,” that “it’s not really fair of me anyway to waste their time if I don’t feel like anything’s there.” (Spin that Rationalization Hamster– big money, big money!) Out of the mouths of babes… or at least her’s directly.

“…and here’s the kicker…
* If she was the YOUNG ONE and they have kids together, daddy is most likely going to be dead long before these kids are ready to let him go. Yes dad, you will have stolen the future from your young children by denying them a dad in their life for the number of years that they could have had if their MOM AND DAD WERE ABOUT THE SAME AGE. 58 year old men making babies with 24 year old wives means 24 year old children burying their selfish, sexually perrverted, father.

That’s reality Marissa. Its hard I know, but swallowing the red pill is hard to do.”

What does her age have to do with this logic?
If she was 16 when he made the babies,” they would be 24 year old children burying their selfish, sexually perrverted, father.”
If she was 30 when he made the babies, ” they would be 24 year old children burying their selfish, sexually perrverted, father.”
If she was 35 when he made the babies, ” they would be 24 year old children burying their selfish, sexually perrverted, father.”
If she was 40 and fertile when he made the babies, ” they would be 24 year old children burying their selfish, sexually perrverted, father.”

I am guessing your problem is his age over hers? Or you think older men have no right to have a child?
The 2nd part i will cover. What is a acceptable age of the child to bury there father? 30? 35?
Men in my family average 74 years. So when I am 44 its time to go under the knife so not to leave any child ( 30 year old???) as a orphan. Thats just 1 grand and my father, if i count my other grand then my average says to go under the knife when i am 33 years old. So by your logic i am a sinner in the Lords name if i have a child when i am 33? ( family men died at 42, 72, and 76 heart.)
Can i ride a motorcycle? Or must all fathers drive a subaru?
My wife asked about a baby before we got wed. My answer was ” i have no problem having a baby at my age, i did have a problem having a teen ready for college when i was ready to retire. This is a choice between the mother and father. The (ADULT ) you called a child would see there father growing old, and old people will die. THAT IS A PART OF LIFE… They will see it coming over many years. Its a normal and natural part of life. And I am willing to bet, they will have more ” quality time ” with there father then 90% of the children raised in the US today. There hearts will always sing from the fatherly love and support they had growing up.

I see many talk about when a girl was wed in the old days. How many have read ” Romeo and Juliet ” ? 16th century. Just to give you a idea when young girls got wed.

SCENE III. Now, by my maidenhead, at twelve year old,……..She’s not fourteen………
Well, think of marriage now; younger than you,
Here in Verona, ladies of esteem,
Are made already mothers: by my count,
I was your mother much upon these years
That you are now a maid. Thus then in brief:
The valiant Paris seeks you for his love.

Well, think of marriage now;”” YOUNGER THEN YOU “”
Here in Verona, ladies of esteem,
Are made already mothers: by my count,

I wanted to highlight that part so no one would miss it.
Juliet was at most 13 years old and had become a woman.
” LADIES OF ESTEEM, YOUNGER THEN YOU !!!! Are already mothers!!!!

Arranged marriage for over 2000 years worked this way. If you and I made a arranged marriage for my 26 year old son to your daughter, when she was 11 or 12 i would falster her in my home.
When she started her first menstrual period the wedding would be arranged. Spring wedding was the best. Her father spent little time with her, she was raised by her mother to be a wife. The only man she ever knew was her husband.
Do not make the mistake of using todays standards to interpret the Bible.

I know many of you will be shocked at this info. Most will say its a lie. Do a little research for your self. Do i think thats right today? HELL NO.
Children need to grow so much more to learn the modern world. Do i think a girl needs to be 26 to get married? ( to old ) is 18 a good age? Depends on her talents IMO. 90 % of the girls out there, yes 18 is best age to marry. If she has a gift, then let her grow in her gift, she might find a cure for cancer, break the light barrier, exc… But be real, most have the same gift we all have, we are just normal people living normal lives.

At the same time, people have been gleefully predicting the end of computer programmers and administrators for decades, and the more they automate, the more complicated things become and the more people are needed.

Actually, this is true. Part of it is being accelerated by the shipping of work overseas and the shipping in of H1B’s, but the real reason behind this one is abstraction. When about 20 years ago, it would require actual ability to program to get anything relatively specialized out of a computer, all it takes today is plugging values into a widget that does an abstract task.

For instance, instead of requiring actual programming ability, Dalrock can sit at his desk and do all kinds of economic and finance related calculations by himself by simply plugging the right things into a program like Excel or OpenOffice Calc. Or instead of having knowledge of sound files and programming to be able to have your own music player, one can just select an abstract widget to do the job, plug in the right values, and away you go. Getting your own music player becomes no more difficult than a Powerpoint presentation.

The fact that these abstract widgets exist (Windows has about 6 craploads of them), and that there are people turning out more all the time make it so that the nature of “programming” is much different today than it was 20 years ago. I even hesitate to call what most programmers do “programming” simply because of that fact. The inability I witness in several circles to cook up even the most simplest jobs outside of these widgets tells literally of how this shift has happened.

So in a sense, the more automated things get behind the scenes the more computer programmers will be at an end – unless you are lucky enough to work at one of the companies that can still produce and distribute widgets.

Leif shooting is a good thing, Marcus. Notice what he says. I haven’t done this in ten years.

Leif is starting to have the “a-ha!” moment in his seperation and divorce. He is remembering and rediscovering all the things he enjoyed and gave up for her and because of her.

He is starting to discover how much she TOOK from him (for that is what women do, they take). Women are dream killers, they give life and yet are life killers.

The Hindu Earth goddess is the perfect representation of the female, she suckles a babe in one arm, while killing another, she dances with the flames of creation and destruction on the body of her husband.

Leif is starting to wake up, and return to his old self. His attachment and hope at reconcilliation are fading, this is good.

“Last year, over on the Roosh V forum, someone brought this up. It’s now not unheard of for young men, just starting out, to keep a wealthy woman on the back burner for financial reasons, while banging hotties casually in his age range. There is a low risk of the woman bumping into any of the playas associates, because she is a decade or more older.”

Well, I was thinking along the lines of custody issues. “He’s a violent person – he even owns guns” could very well be said by Jenny. Given the usual trigger-happiness of family courts, any excuse will do (then again: “He has a beard!” – *gasp* get those children away from him).

@Ballista74, you make a good point about widgets and things like wordpress and WYSIWYG editors, I hadn’t thought of it that way. Despite that, there are a multitude more people employed as programmers today than there were twenty or thirty years ago.

“Deti
You’re saying even the poorest of women want the status of being connected to a man, to being a man’s woman.

Sure, because all women are like that. And if they can trade up, they will, because all women are hypergamous. One of the claims of feminism is sorta true: the real, true patriarchy indeed did suppress women’s sexuality. And for good reason, left uncontrolled it is a destructive force. Euripides knew this 2500 years ago, it is a key point in his final work, The Bacchae.

The core components and many very basic things may be taken care off, but the world is far from plug and play in the area of software. Mobile developers (with experience) would not be commanding such a good price now, as one example. The company I work for makes its money providing a system to a specific segment of the market and they are both doing well and expanding the development staff (as well as other places).

It does require more thinking in some ways, though perhaps not in others. I have written code in assembly, Pascal, C/C++, etc. and assembly (which was mostly earlier) was generally a lot harder.

So, I was reading CAF today, and I am practically forced to conclude that at least 2-3% of the frequent-commenting userbase is insane, or suffers some sort of severe mental illness that is apparent through their comments. (It makes sense in that mentally ill people are more likely to comment a lot online…) Anyhow, just a thought, since many comments are so divorced* from reality.

“Despite that, there are a multitude more people employed as programmers today than there were twenty or thirty years ago.”

Exactly UH. The simpler tasks have been solved, now the much more challenging ones remain. Anyone who can and will master things like Data Science would appear to have a much better leg up in the future. Though those jobs still require lots of individual smarts that many do not have, at least not in the area of computers.

BTW, the last comment was referring to the population at large. I don’t see lots of blue color works shifting to development or other IT jobs any time soon. I have no idea if anyone here could thrive in those areas. I have seen enough try and fail to know that not all can.

This is taking the internet by storm. Sometimes I wonder if feminists are just obsessed with attention (due to the clear reasons why they dont get it through normal venues). I looked at other titles “Successful Women Dont Fall in Love” is one, bemoaning women going all “self-sacrifical” when they care about something outside themselves. The horror! This woman apparently wants all women to be some sick parody of men.

Also it’s likely there are some major sour grapes here and you could shorten the title to “I Look Down On Young Women”.

“Having kids and getting married are considered life milestones. We have baby showers and wedding parties as if it’s a huge accomplishment and cause for celebration to be able to get knocked up or find someone to walk down the aisle with. These aren’t accomplishments, they are actually super easy tasks, literally anyone can do them.”

This essay was apparently written by a feminist, but I wrote something remarkably similar in the days when I was hanging with some MGTOW guys over on the-spearhead dot com. At the time I was going through a bad breakup, banging ten women a week, and hating on women generally. At one point, a bunch of the old hens in my office were giggling and congratulating one of their contemporaries on getting pregnant. I juxtaposed the ecstacy of these people doing what any dumb barnyard animal can do, with the celebration of the team who sent the first space capsule to the moon, right after touchdown.

I’m glad I got over that phase of my life. The Spearhead is (or it was) full of similar negative people, and I was as negative as any of them. All the same, this is a phase that many people (apparently women too) go through, when they are working out their internal conflicts. At some point, the angst gets sublated into something more productive, and the rational subject moves on to more meaningful pursuits than grouching on other people’s good fortune.

Ahh, the panacea of more education and training for people who are probably disinclined and/or incapable. Returns to native intelligence have never been greater in the history of the world. Yes, there will always be niche opportunities such as those noted herein for those willing to perform disgusting and/or dangerous work at odd hours, but technology advancements coupled with public policy promoting the out-migration of jobs to the rest of the world and the in-migration of workers to perform what is left, is hollowing out large swaths of lower and middle income jobs in the blue and white collar arenas.

Re: “I have generally dated “bad boy” types that I am always attracted to because they’re really attractive, exciting, and don’t fawn all over me. Unfortunately, the majority of them have lied, cheated, and manipulated the shit out of our relationships. I have no doubt that I will end up with a “nice guy””
I have serious doubts for her, and for ALL women like her. BBGTOW FTW.

I seriously doubt that Jenny knew a gun stock from a gun barrel before Leif explained the difference to her (probably using single-syllable words to get his point across). Leif also probably warned Jenny about the trigger finger, but she very likely ignored him. The photo serves as documentary evidence of her careless (and potentially dangerous) stupidity.

The Internet is a wonderful thing that way for narcissists. They can project their chosen false image of themselves and then, rather than have to deal with the reality of people calling them out on their falseness, they can curate their image by removing the offending, truthful comments. It’s why I left Facebook. Who has time for that? If they want a one-way conversation and an audience (adoring audience only), better to deprive them of the audience, and leave them to talk to themselves.

They will just find another audience. It’s O.K. They are used to having to do that. Friends don’t stay around long, either, either the because the friends wise up to being used, or because the narcissist cuts them off cold when they are no longer useful (adoring).

As someone put it well, narcissists are always looking for “a louder microphone and a shinier mirror”.

It makes total sense from the femine imperative pov for a woman to pursue an AFBB life strategy. And the AF is nowadays extraordinarily easy for an ordinary woman to achieve, definitely easier than ever before in history. In past centuries much fewer women pursued AF, and enabling more women to pursue AF was in fact the entire purpose of the sexual revolution. But the decline of marriage has made BB ever more difficult for the ordinary woman to achieve, probably more difficult than ever before in history given that marriage rate are at historic lows, and marriage remains more difficult for those women who do AF than those who do not.

The rising demand for the betas’ bucks doesn’t mean the demand for the betas rises. It means their bucks will be taken from them by hook or by crook.

I put together yareallyarchive.com. “Component”-like tools made it drastically easier for me to make a high quality site, yet I still needed to know exactly what’s going on to bring all those together.

Fucking simple, get comments off a site and show ’em elsewhere, right?

Off the shelf code libraries were used for pulling comments from heartiste’s site, storage of them in a database, serving the data, as well as making them nicely styled on the page. That’s shit’s great.

There are lots of hard issues that had to be solved though:
• I used a simple recursive algorithm to determine which comments to import. Somebody who doesn’t know basic algorithms won’t be able to show you the right comments.
• Notice how the site loads fast as fuck? The actual pages take several seconds to render on the server. There’s a solid caching setup backing the site, as well as custom code I wrote to replace the stock page rendering which could take 10+ seconds to show a page.
• Somebody wanted to see all of a commenter’s field reports that YaReally had written breakdowns for. There are ad-hoc and ghetto ways to do this. I wrote a custom database query using the database’s underlying representation (modified preorder tree traversal) to find all of them in a single, fast pass.

I read some of the comments, and found them ineffective to the long term goals of the average dalrock reader. The people who went over there and insulted her kids, alluded to sexual contact with her, etc. were in poor taste. More importantly, they tended to boost her ego.

If we must interact with Jennykook, we ought to be wise. Don’t insult her directly. This just reinforces the stereotypes that we’re hateful and small minded. It will be much more effective to poke fun at her white knights on twitter. It will also be worthwhile to inform her fans, in a factual and dispassionate way, that she’s a radfem posing as a christian conservative. All the evidence needed to support this is in her own hand, on her own blog, where she boasts about making her kids bastards and divorcing a good man to “have it all”. That’s what a radfem does, and she is one of them.

In this way, we treat her like the absolute nobody that she truly is. She is of no significance, and her whining about how she’s being “stalked” is just so much flatulent boasting that she has some sort of impact on the world, which she doesn’t.

So, now Leif is posting every day some activity he is doing with his daughters. Interesting…

Of course I may be wrong, but I view this as an attempt to get Jenny to notice him. “Look at me! I’m such a great father! Don’t you want to reconsider??” etc. This suggests he has zero communication with her and is desperately throwing up flags in public (or its twitter equivalent).

The problem, as we all know, is that this is counterproductive. In Jenny’s mind, Leif’s parenting skills are actually a reason to stay the course. “See,” she says, “the kids are better off than they were before… Leif is taking great care of them… So now I can ride some new dick with less of a guilty conscience.”

What Leif should be doing is ignoring the bitch totally, leaving her without any sort of moral or emotional support, and posting photos of himself having fun, socializing with young hot women, and doing exciting new things with his brothers. Granted, that probably won’t convince his slut wife to return, but it will let her know where she actually stands in the grand scheme of things.

Several women forwarded this to me as if this is ‘great’ marriage advice. There is a NANNY in the photo of the Married ‘couple’ — Read it, then consider that a nanny takes care of the children while he’s gone. It’s word vomit that reads like a list of why men are opting OUT of marriage. None of the article considers the husband, therefore, men have absolutely no incentive to marry. This is not mutually ‘loving’ because it only considers her desires. When a man comes home after more than 11 hours, he doesn’t need a series of questions from her about his day. That’s what she wants. What he wants does not matter to her. The article implies they’re in a ‘traditional marriage’ — since this appears to the situation, she should realize that he is not her best girlfriend, my friend Lori Gottlieb has stated (in her book “Marry Him…”) that a woman wouldn’t want to marry her best girlfriend. Sitting and sharing his FEELINGS about his day is not his thing. That’s her thing. What does he need when he arrives at home? Questions asked of him do not = love. Suzanne Venker interviewed me for her latest hardcover book with the bright red cover. She asked me about this exact scenario. My answer is within: http://amzn.to/1iDePUh — The ridiculous nonsense in the HuffPost article intended to destroy marriages like the one described in the article. The fact that it is so popular = why MOST people that are married (in traditional marriages) today WILL BE DIVORCED. Count on it. If you’re one of the hundreds of thousands sharing this, when you’re divorced – – – remember this prediction. The Huffington Post article is Divorce Prep.

The girl is clueless, as are the females leaving the “the men are wrong; you go girl” comments.

The post sums up in one paragraph all red-pill concerns about modern women.

Guys on here, I want to give you a word of advice?

I see a TON of guys on here who are so depressed over not having a girlfriend and are so pissed at the guys who seem to get all the girls. the reality is, you will find some one, most of you are young and you have SO much time before you actually find “the one.” Also, the guys you are all jealous of are generally not good guys. I have generally dated “bad boy” types that I am always attracted to because they’re really attractive, exciting, and don’t fawn all over me. Unfortunately, the majority of them have lied, cheated, and manipulated the shit out of our relationships. I have no doubt that I will end up with a “nice guy” and I can tell you with a fair amount of confidence that most girls will because no girl with self respect sticks around with a “bad boy” in less he reforms himself. I have to say I hope for the reformed bad boy, but he is a rare bird and once he’s reformed, who’s to say he’ll be exciting anymore? Anyway, keep hope alive you guys, most of you sound like very caring, kind, and interesting guys who have a lot to offer.

Update: update: you guys are hard to please. I am trying to say girls make mistakes with ‘bad boys” but the good guys win out in the end. I thought that got through, but for some of you I guess it didn’t and I’m sorry. I was trying to encourage you to be good to women. 2 days ago

Update: I really hit a nerve! I apologize! I would also like to clarify though: I am not a gold digger, I am not a liar, and I am not trying to change any guy that I date from the person who he is. I guess I am drawn to guys who are a little edgy and that can be tough, but hopefully I’ll end up with a guy who suits that and is also a mature and loving human being. 2 days ago

Second marriages have a way higher divorce rate then the first go around.

This is likely due to selectivity. People who are more likely to divorce aren’t going to stop at one divorce, as a group. So it makes sense that divorce rates for second marriages are going to be higher.

Boxer, he might be posting those statuses for anti-family court purposes. In which case posting those photos of fun with hot, young things might be counterproductive (until he gets custody). I certainly hope he gets primary custody.

…if you divorce once and you find that it is not the end of YOUR world, (you don’t give a damn if its the end of your spouse’s world) then there is nothing to prevent you from divorcing again…. because, you’ve already done it, been there done that.

Second marriages have a way higher divorce rate then the first go around.

This is likely due to selectivity. People who are more likely to divorce aren’t going to stop at one divorce, as a group. So it makes sense that divorce rates for second marriages are going to be higher.

True, and it is even worse than it appears on its face. All else being equal, marriages with younger wives are more likely to divorce than marriages where the wife is older, and the difference in divorce rates is quite strong. Second marriages start off with the advantage of older wives, but even with that advantage they still end up with higher divorce rates.

Yup, probably so about Jenny’s blog. (That anal-minded cadtheplayer dude and some others were a bit much– not my doing, their antics, I assure you.) However, it was fun to have a flame war with her White Knight and/or “You go, girl!” supporters on her own blog. (Got one of her flunkies to admit– and defend– it was classic ‘gina tingle motivation all along, too.) Classic left/liberal response to shut down debate when they don’t like what comes up, too.

I see a TON of girls on here who are so depressed over not having a boyfriend and are so pissed at the girls who seem to get all the guys. The reality is, you will find someone, most of you are young and you have SO much time before you actually find “the one.” Also, the girls you are all jealous of are generally not good girls. I have generally dated “bad girl” types that I am always attracted to because they’re really attractive, exciting, and don’t fawn all over me. Unfortunately, the majority of them have lied, cheated, and manipulated the shit out of our relationships. I have no doubt that I will end up with a “nice girl” and I can tell you with a fair amount of confidence that most guys will because no guy with self respect sticks around with a “bad girl” in less she reforms herself. I have to say I hope for the reformed bad girl, but she is a rare bird and once she’s reformed, who’s to say she’ll be exciting anymore? Anyway, keep hope alive you girls, most of you sound like very caring, kind, and interesting girls who have a lot to offer.

Update: update: you girls are hard to please. I am trying to say guys make mistakes with ‘bad girls” but the good girls win out in the end. I thought that got through, but for some of you I guess it didn’t and I’m sorry. I was trying to encourage you to be good to men…

Update: I really hit a nerve! I apologize! I would also like to clarify though: I am not a ‘womanizer’, I am not a liar, and I am not trying to change any girl that I date from the person who she is. I guess I am drawn to girls who are a little edgy and that can be tough, but hopefully I’ll end up with a girl who suits that and is also a mature and loving human being…

True, and it is even worse than it appears on its face. All else being equal, marriages with younger wives are more likely to divorce than marriages where the wife is older, and the difference in divorce rates is quite strong. Second marriages start off with the advantage of older wives, but even with that advantage they still end up with higher divorce rates.

The difference in the rate of disruption between women ages 20–24 years and women at least 25 years of age at marriage is not statistically significant, but the difference between those over age 20 years and those under age 20 years at marriage is significant (Bramlett, Matthew D., and William D. Mosher. “First marriage dissolution, divorce, and remarriage.” National Center for Health Statistics. 2001, also: Bramlett, Matthew D., and William D. Mosher. “Cohabitation, marriage, divorce, and remarriage in the United States.” National Center for Health Statistics. Vital Health Stat 23.22 (2002): 1-32.). (One exception: according to the 1995 NCHS, Hispanic women who marry at 25 or older have a higher divorce rate than Hispanic women marrying under 18 or aged 20-24.) Breaking that down differently: persons aged 15-24 had a divorce rate of 32 per 1,000 in 2010, and 25-34 was 29 per 1000 (Brown, S. L., Lin, I.-F., & Payne, K. K. “Age Variation in the Divorce Rate, 1990-2010” (FP-12-05). National Center for Family & Marriage Research. 2012). For adults over age 35, the divorce rate has increased (and each older age group has a larger increase).

As you’ve noted previously, divorce risk is effected by likelihood of remarriage (which goes down with age, in women). Most women who marry as teenagers or in their early 20s, divorce within six years, which is below the average age of marriage (again, see Bramlett) and thus doesn’t really endanger chances of remarrying (unlike those who marry over 25 and then divorce – again, Bramlett).

But if he’s in his 40s or 50s and his wife must be 20-25, he’s still a pervert. There is some sexual deviancy there.

IBB’s “daughter” that he encouraged to slut it up because she wasn’t getting any marriage proposals anyway – clearly she’s been using his account for the last few months.

Hitting the wall hurts, don’t it sweetheart?

By Cail’s infernal sexual pervert’s logic, a man should never marry a woman unless she is a breeder ready to have his babies. Otherwise she is unmarriable. That is basically where his logic takes him. He’s wrong. And so are you.

She also hates the idea of having children until she’s good and ready. She wants the benefits of marriage without actually doing her part. She doesn’t want to submit.

That’s why she’s not married.

“You nasty perverts wanting young fertile wives ready to have children – you’re wrong! You should want to marry women your age that might not want children right away. Women like me! Er, I mean my daughter!”

It’s been doing this for a month now. It’s predictable at this point. Rather humorous, really. Reminds me of the stoning scene from Monty Python’s Life of Brian.

> It is not a case of hurting feelings. It is a case of hating old men while saying you don’t. Hating old men who have done nothing wrong but not die young, makes you look really pathetic.

>>Oh well, I tried. I tried to be nice, say I was sorry, and you told me to f-off. You only hear what you want to hear. You think you know everything. So be it.

>>I guess I’m pretty much done with you.

Clearly you do not know what it means to be nice, nor how to apologize. Making shaming comments implying I have no basis for criticizing you for repeatedly calling old men farts while claiming you don’t really hate old men, but rather I merely have “hurt feelings”, is neither being nice, nor apologizing.

Let me say it again. Anyone who calls old men, old farts or wrinkly farts, or some other description of the stench of rotten human fecal material, hates old men.

I guess it’s okay to hate old men, or feminists or AW, just don’t lie and say you don’t.

>> It’s been doing this for a month now. It’s predictable at this point. Rather humorous, really.

>>What is even more humorous (at least for me) is the thought that you guys think you know how old my daughters(s) are. And then from that belief, you use that to frame my motives.

I am reminded of some feminists who wrote on the National newsletter of Mensa, around 30 years ago. They used names they well knew are viewed as male names, and when men addressed them as men, they threw a tantrum, accusing men of sexism, assuming they were men just because they used male names.

I told them if they wanted people to know they were not men, it was their job to make that clear. If they did not make it clear, then STFU about being confused for men. Women who don’t want to be confused with men have tradtionally used names like Sue; Alice; and Betty, instead of Bob; Henry; and George, so people will know.

Same here. If you talk about your daughters, which is your choice, no one made you do it, (and some of us would probably prefer you did not) and don’t tell how old they are, STFU when someone makes a guess and writes based on that guess.

“By Cail’s infernal sexual pervert’s logic, a man should never marry a woman unless she is a breeder ready to have his babies. Otherwise she is unmarriable. That is basically where his logic takes him. He’s wrong.”

Why is this wrong? In essence, this is how I sized up potential wives when I decided to remarry. I did marry a woman too old to bear children herself, but she WAS one who was committed to my vision of ASAP going the ova donor/gestational surrogate route. We did all that, and it’s not been a bad deal for us.

If a woman is not going to be part of a route to a man having children that are HIS, marriage to her should be a non-concept in America now, and for the foreseeable future (e.g., non-post-reset/The Big Dieoff).